David Miliband: My hon. Friend has a longstanding interest in the subject. He is absolutely right that the Government, business and individuals cannot crack the problem acting on their own. The Government have to take a lead, not least by getting their own house in order. Business must make a contribution, and there is now cross-party support for the fact that nearly half the country's greenhouse gas emissions are covered by the European Union emissions trading scheme, which is a positive development. Individuals can play an important part, too, and that is why I have led the debate about personal carbon allowances and so-called carbon credit cards, which could help individuals to see how they can make a contribution that will help the environment and themselves.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I put it on record that the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty), who asked the question, has left the Chamber, although we have not completed the questioning. That is a discourtesy, and I inform the Whip that that should be pointed out to the hon. Lady. She should wait at least until the next question. I call Mr. Peter Ainsworth.

Peter Ainsworth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Calder Valley has left the Chamber, as she asked a rather good supplementary question, and I was disappointed by the Secretary of State's reply. We want to be helpful to the Government in moving towards a low-carbon economy, and we want him to be ambitious. Perhaps I should clarify: we know that he is ambitious, but we want him to be ambitious about climate change. Why will he not reconsider his opposition to including annual targets for cutting carbon in the climate change Bill?

Christopher Huhne: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is no technical impediment to the adjustment of data for gross domestic product to allow for the business cycle? The Government already adjust their own energy use figures for temperature and thus the weather, so will he reassure the House that, in the forthcoming Bill, he will not set NIMTO—not in my term of office—targets but targets that allow the Government's performance to be assessed? A five-year target would be a NIMTO target, as a Parliament usually lasts for four years. Will he allow the Government's performance to be assessed on an ongoing basis during their term of office?

Martin Salter: Britain's 3.5 million anglers will welcome the news that the outcome of the salmon and freshwater fisheries review will be enacted by the Government, as promised in our charter for angling several years ago. However, will the measures set out by the Minister enable tougher action to be taken against fish thefts, which are carried out either for the illegal stocking of fisheries or, more recently, by eastern European workers, who simply fish for the pot? Will he increase the present derisory penalties and tidy up the ambiguous and ineffective byelaws?

Bill Wiggin: I am worried by the Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter). On 23 February 2004 the Minister stated:
	"Work is proceeding towards the development of primary legislation required to implement other accepted recommendations"—[ Official Report, 23 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 137W.]—
	that is, of the Warren report. So the Minister has rowed back from primary legislation in the form of a fisheries Bill, and the draft Marine Bill has disappeared, though he promised that on 3 July 2006 at column 745W. Can he tell us whether there is to be a marine Bill, and when, or will he row back to secondary legislation for that as well?

Barry Gardiner: I am delighted to echo my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for freight going back on to the waterways. In the context of climate change, that is exactly the sort of move we should encourage. Although the exact modality and the use of the waterways is a matter for British Waterways to consider in relation to its management of the waterways, I am sure my hon. Friend knows of the Olympics project and our desire that much of the freight traffic for the construction of that project should be on the canals and waterways in the area if the development there goes ahead.

Barry Gardiner: I must correct the hon. Gentleman again. It is not the case that British Waterways has borne the brunt of the reallocation of £200 million in the Department. The in-year cut, which is only to the grant-in-aid, not the organisation's total income, is 6.6 per cent. If he considers that as part of the total income, he will realise that the figure is just over 1.5 per cent. of the organisation's budget. The reallocation was felt throughout DEFRA, and other organisations, which do not have the same resources and capacity to attract external funding, had in-year cuts of 10 per cent. and more. To say that British Waterways bore the brunt is wrong. I understand the tremendous support that British Waterways enjoys because of its regeneration work throughout the country. We have shown that we value it through our investment. I stress again that we have invested £524 million in it since we have been in office.

Mark Todd: Would not two improvements to the RPA be to simplify its function by removing some of its marginal activities in which—although it is hard to argue that is skilled in anything much—it is even less skilled, and to consider its overall governance? The Secretary of State mentioned the governance of the RPA, so will he reflect on the proposal that I made about four years ago that the organisation should be customer-led in its processing activity, as opposed to being part of a civil service function as it is now?

James Paice: The Secretary of State plans to cut the single farm payment next year through voluntary modulation, despite no other country in Europe wanting to do that and the regulation being defeated in the European Parliament by nearly 10 to 1, which included most of the Socialist group voting against it. I am sure that the Secretary of State knows, however, that neither the Commission nor the European Parliament can stop it, so he will get his voluntary modulation. In that light, and on the assumption that he knows by now how much money he will get from the Chancellor, can he explain why he has not yet submitted his rural development plan to the Commission? At least then the system could be approved, and once the legal regulation is achieved, he could commence the scheme.

Ian Pearson: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that individuals take action to reduce their carbon footprint. About 40 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions stem from actions taken by individuals. People in Britain understand the impact of climate change and want to do something about it. There is still a gap, however, between people's values and their behaviour. Finding new and better ways to make it easier for people to reduce CO2 emissions is a high priority for the Government. My hon. Friend will be interested in the Energy Saving Trust's, "Save your 20 per cent." campaign, which provides a number of useful tips on how people can reduce their carbon footprint.

Michael Jack: I welcome what the Minister has to say, and he knows of my initiative to make Fylde the most energy-efficient in the country. He will also accept the complexity of the issues involved in dealing with climate change, whether from a personal or governmental standpoint. Will he consider changing the energy White Paper that is due out in March 2007 to a climate change White Paper, enabling the whole range of issues influencing the subject, not just energy, to be dealt with in volume?

Ian Pearson: Energy efficiency is extremely important for all households, and particularly for vulnerable households. This Government have spent a substantial sum on the Warm Front programme. We have also introduced warm zones, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the pre-Budget report that there will be extra funding for such zones. That will make a real difference, because it will join up action on the ground in a practical way to help people to insulate their homes and reduce their energy bills. There is an issue to do with future electricity and gas supplies. We need to address that as part of theenergy White Paper, and we are doing just that. Weare also encouraging microgeneration through the microgeneration strategy, and, of course, we have the renewables obligation and the renewables targets that were set out for 2010 and 2020.

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The tragedy of such destruction is that in many cases very valuable and vulnerable ecosystems that have built up over thousands of years are destroyed in a matter of seconds. We face a huge challenge in international waters where governance is often weak, if not non-existent, and where enforcement can also be completely absent. He is also right that we need to take action in our own waters. We have been doing so by protecting areas such as the Darwin Mounds—we are the first European Union country to do such a thing. We are committed to having exactly the network of marine protected areas that my hon. Friend—and, I am sure, all Members—would like there to be.

Ann Clwyd: Can my hon. Friend explain how the culturally and environmentally sensitive people of Iceland can continue this barbaric practice of whaling, while at the same time promoting, as part of their tourism, whale-watching? Will he tell the President of Iceland—not the ambassador—that such a practice is absolutely despicable and we are not having it?

Ian Pearson: I am very encouraged by the robust approach that the Commission is taking in assessing the phase 2 national allocation plans. Member states understand that they need to meet their Kyoto commitments, and that the NAPs for all member states will be sufficiently robust. The EU ETS is working. Phase 1 has been a trial period but according to recent estimates, it is already producing significant CO2 savings. I have no doubt that phase 2, given the tighter caps that will be introduced, will be even more successful and that emissions trading will play a key part in reducing CO2 emissions in the European economy.

Julie Kirkbride: When does the Minister expect phase 2 of the EU's emissions trading scheme to be fully in place, and does he agree with me that until we have a long-term and robust system under the banner of the ETS, necessary investment in the UK energy market—such as renewables but also nuclear—cannot proceed?

Anne McIntosh: Of course one of the quickest ways to reduce carbon emissions is to replace fossil fuels with biofuels and bioethanol. I know that the Secretary of State will be following closely developments at Whittington where a biofuels plant is being established. Will he look to establish such a plant in the north of England, perhaps in the constituency of the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on the site of the British Sugar plant which is closing at great cost to local farmers in north Yorkshire?

David Miliband: The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I know that she forms an important alliance—I shall not call it an unholy alliance—with my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on certain issues while maintaining a healthy competition with him on other matters. We are following the issues in York and its surroundings carefully. The most important thing that we can do is to ensure that the demand side has a clear bias towards biofuels and other such products. For example, the initiative in respect of the road transport fuel obligation—including the guarantee on 5 per cent. of forecourt sales being from biofuels by 2008, with an aim of doubling that figure—is the sort of signal that we can best give to ensure that we get the right pull through on those important new technologies.

Barry Gardiner: I understand the considerable seriousness of the hon. Gentleman's question. I know of the investigation to which he refers. Although it would be improper for me to comment, we want it to be concluded at the earliest possible date.

Theresa May: If you will allow me a little leeway, Mr. Speaker, before I ask the Leader of the House my business questions, may I just explain the absence of my deputy, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara)? His second son was born earlier this week, and we offer him our congratulations. Indeed, his son had the foresight to wait to be born until after the 10 o'clock vote earlier this week, so I am sure that a future in the Whips Office beckons for him.
	I am grateful to the Leader of the House for indicating that there will be a debate in Government time to focus on the middle east. A number of right hon. and hon. Members and I have been asking for a debate on Iraq for some time, and I am grateful to him for providing that.
	I am sure that the Leader of the House has seen the report today showing that Ministers avoided answering more than 1,000 written parliamentary questions in the last Session of Parliament. I commend him for being innocent of this charge, and I am sure that he will tell me that the problem is that there are so many more written questions these days. But the unanswered questions covered issues such as the number of school leavers without any GCSE qualifications, the number of homes built on green-belt land and violent crime committed by murderers released on parole—all issues of concern to our constituents.
	The report follows the information from the Department for Work and Pensions that replies to awkward questions are distorted or delayed and some are simply thrown in the bin. In the House on 10 July, the right hon. Gentleman said:
	"I attach great importance to the accuracy and timeliness of responses to parliamentary questions"—[ Official Report, 10 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 1560W.]
	He is right: it is the job of Ministers to be accountable, and it is the job of Members to scrutinise the Government. So will he now investigate and make a statement to the House after the recess to set out what steps will be taken to ensure that all parliamentary questions are given full and timely replies in future?
	The resolution of the House of 19 March 1997 states:
	"It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity."—[ Official Report, 19 March 1997; Vol. 292, c. 1047.]
	Can the Leader of the House tell us why it took the Secretary of State for Defence from the end of October to the middle of December to correct the record on his claim that there would be no losers when the Government introduced changes to allowances for troops?
	Another example of reducing parliamentary scrutiny is the handling of the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order. The order covers 304 pages, 308 articles and 13 schedules, yet it was set for only two and a half hours of debate. In July this year, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) told the House:
	"if we are unable to restore devolution by 24 November, we will quickly introduce measures to make direct rule more accountable."
	He also said:
	"We will...ensure that, whenever possible, we legislate for Northern Ireland through primary legislation."—[ Official Report, 25 July 2006; Vol. 449, c. 766.]
	Will the Leader of the House give a commitment to the House that the Government will not in future introduce such lengthy and controversial legislation by unamendable order?
	May we have a debate in Government time on financial management in the Department of Health? Ministers have been quick to point out in the past that deficits in NHS trusts were the result of poor financial management locally. Yet the Health Committee report on NHS deficits, which was issued earlier this week, makes it clear that some of the blame lies at the centre. It said:
	"Poor central management has contributed to the deficits."
	We need such a debate, so that Members can hold Ministers, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to account for their responsibility for the loss of 21,000 posts in the NHS, the threat to 80 community hospitals and the closure of accident and emergency and maternity units across the country.
	Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I join the Leader of the House in sending best wishes for the Christmas festivities? As we look ahead to those festivities, I am sure that if hon. Members want advice on office parties, they could always ask the Deputy Prime Minster, and that if they want to know how much to drink, they can always ask a bishop. May I join the Leader of the House in wishing you, Mr. Speaker, and all right hon. and hon. Members and, indeed, all the staff, who serve us so well throughout the year, a very merry Christmas?

Jacqui Smith: Well, that's all right then.

Jack Straw: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman will at least offer Christmas greetings on behalf of his party on Tuesday. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats are having to debate whether they recognise Christmas. The hon. Gentleman is a generous character, so for the life of me, I do not understand why he cannot say "Happy Christmas" today. I have been trying to discover the source of all the politically correct nonsense; I strongly suspect that it is somewhere in the heart of the Liberal Democrat party.
	To continue, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his acceptance that there will be a debate on Iraq and the middle east in January. The title will be "Foreign Policy", because issues may have arisen in Afghanistan and it is important that the House has a timeous opportunity to discuss them. It is not correct to say that there have been no debates in Government time on the subject for three years; I am happy to give him a list of the occasions on which such debates have taken place.
	On post offices, the hon. Gentleman should listen to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has to say. If there is demand for a debate, it will be considered in the normal way by the usual channels. However, I say to him and to the House that what we need in relation to change in the Post Office is a grown-up debate on the fact that there have been changes, not caused by anyone in the House or directly by anyone outside, but resulting from the internet, which have dramatically changed the use made of the Post Office. The hon. Gentleman knows that; he also knows that in the unlikely event of the Liberals being in government, they would face precisely the same issues as we do.  [ Interruption. ] We are in government, as the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) says from a sedentary position, and we are happy to make the decisions.

Jack Straw: I shall make sure that that happens.
	If I may lift the veil on Cabinet proceedings, my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip was an active supporter of the changes. I told the Modernisation Committee that. To be frank, without her active support and that of her colleagues in the Whips' Office, it would not have been possible, not only for us to have approved the changes, but to ensure that they have a fair wind behind them. I am in no doubt at all that my right hon. Friend will ensure that.

Jack Straw: I suspect that that will result in a large number of people who gave up smoking years ago suddenly going to the doctor and saying that they require further help to quit. I shall certainly look into the problem and report back to my hon. Friend. I regret to say that my, very boring, prescriptions are all too accurate.

Martin Salter: What action does the Leader of the House plan to take about the Conservative cash for canapés scandal revealed by my hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr. Jones), and for Bassetlaw (John Mann)? I understand that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is investigating no fewer than 32 fundraising dinners or lunches held in the Commons to line the coffers of the Tory party. When will the House have the chance to debate—

Jack Straw: The reason there are delays, which in some cases are unacceptable, is the huge increase in the volume of questions. The hon. Gentleman screws up his face, but the number of questions has risen—the figures are from comparable, long Sessions—from 53,000 in 1997-98, to 73,000 in 2001-02, and 95,000 in the last Session. That is an 80 per cent. increase in questions. I work very hard, as do my ministerial colleagues, to ensure that questions are answered on time and fully. Opposition Members know as well as Labour Members that I am always happy to follow the matter up when answers are not given properly, and so are my ministerial colleagues. No Minister wants a reputation for delaying answers or for giving poor quality answers. I want as many questions as possible to be answered, and that is why the Procedure Committee, under the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), is looking into the matter. The issue is fundamental to the working of our parliamentary democracy, but there must also be acceptance that hon. Members on both sides of the House have a responsibility to operate the system.

Jack Straw: My answer to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary is that I am responsible for a lot, but not the "Channel 4 News". The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) seeks to make allegations that have no substance, and he knows very well that there are proper systems of scrutiny for all honours. He also knows that the issue of honours is not a matter for the House.

Peter Bone: Yesterday, I received a letter from Mrs. Dee Smith, a constituent who works for the Department for Constitutional Affairs. She has worked for the civil service for 32 years, but unfortunately she is suffering from cancer. In February this year, her brave, highly respected and much-loved 23-year-old son, Carl, was killed in Iraq while on active service. In September, the DCA introduced a flexible early retirement scheme, and given the circumstances, I would have thought that Mrs. Smith was an ideal candidate for the scheme. Unfortunately, the Department turned down her application on grounds of cost. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on the DCA's operation of its flexible early retirement scheme?

Kali Mountford: Christmas is a time for families, so I was particularly pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) announce the news of a Christmas baby for her deputy, the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara). Would it not be timely to consider the Government's family policies, too? In particular, should we not consider the way in which the Government should support families, without dictating how they should live? Should we not consider how Departments support families, and the relationship between Departments? Let us look into how policies on the working families tax credit, child care policies, Sure Start, and maternity and paternity leave work together, and have a debate on that.

Linda Gilroy: I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that there will be a debate on foreign affairs in Government time before the end of January. May I look to him to ensure that it gives us the opportunity properly to recognise the important job that so many servicemen and women are doing for us in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world, and to recognise the brave politicians of the young democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan? I ask him to take the opportunity, since we are also thinking of families, to—

Jack Straw: May I complete my hon. Friend's sentence, as we need to think about all the families of our brave service personnel? Those of us who have family connections with the services know all too well the intensity of feeling among those families, particularly when they are separated during the holidays. In many ways, the pressure on the families is even worse than the pressure on individuals, and I applaud the work that my hon. Friend does on behalf of her many constituents. When I attended Navy day in Plymouth in late summer, I was impressed by the work not just of members of the Navy but of all the services represented in her constituency.

Jack Straw: It is an important issue, and we will look at the opportunities for debate, either in Westminster Hall or in the Chamber.

Julian Lewis: May we have a debate on early-day motion 361 on the replacement of Trident, tabled by the shadow Defence team in terms very similar indeed to the robust terms of the Prime Minister's statement?
	 [That this House believes that the United Kingdom should continue to possess a strategic nuclear deterrent as long as other countries have nuclear weapons; and accordingly endorses the principle of preparing to replace the Trident system with a successor generation of the nuclear deterrent.]
	If the answer is that we can await the debate and vote in three months, will the Leader of the House at least confirm that he and his hon. Friends will sign the early-day motion, as it is so close to his own Prime Minister's policy?

Alistair Darling: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Post Office. I am today publishing the Government's proposals in a consultation document, copies of which will be available in the Vote Office in the usual way.
	First, let me set out the background to the proposals that we make. There are 14,300 post offices in the UK, of which 480 are Crown post offices owned by the Post Office and 13,820 post offices are operated by postmasters and mistresses as private businesses. Historically, branches have been located where the sub-postmaster has chosen to set up business, rather than as a result of a strategic decision by the Post Office. The result is that in some places many branches are competing for the same customers, which is why the Post Office will take a more active role in ensuring that the right post office in the right place—something the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters supports.
	But the big problem is that people are simply not using post offices as they once did. Some 4 million fewer people are using post offices each week, compared to just two years ago.  [Interruption.] The market in which the post office network operates has changed beyond recognition in the past 10 to 15 years. Traditionally, the post office was the place— [Interruption.]

Edward Davey: May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement but tell him how angry he has made millions of people throughout the country, including pensioners, whom the Government bullied into moving their pensions into bank accounts? Does he realise that he is sounding the death knell for thousands of local shops, rural businesses and communities?
	The Government are trying to blame the public for post office losses but will the Secretary of State tell us the value of Government business withdrawn by Ministers from post offices since 1997? Post offices used to get 60 per cent. of their income from Government business; soon it will be only 10 per cent. Surely that proves that post offices losses were made in Whitehall.
	The Secretary of State told us how generous the Government were to keep a subsidy for the Post Office. Will he confirm the results of a Treasury study that shows that, for every pound of subsidy for post offices, the rural economy benefits from between £2 and £4? Has any new study been undertaken of the high economic and social returns from the subsidy? Will he publish those studies?
	The Secretary of State waxed lyrical about his proposed innovations to keep some limited postal services in remoter places. Why are his ideas so weak? How can we be sure that the policy will bring the new services and products that the Post Office needs? Why is he keeping Post Office Ltd under the control of the Royal Mail Group? He says that there are plans for new parcel pick-up services linked to mail order companies. That is great if it happens. However, does not he realise that Royal Mail Group puts restrictions in its contracts with post offices that are designed to benefit Royal Mail at the expense of sub-postmasters? Will he stop that?
	There is a huge hole in the heart of the statement—the Secretary of State's failure to say anything about the future of Royal Mail. Will he confirm that its financial future is grim and that, on top of a massive pensions deficit, Royal Mail is losing huge amounts of business to private competitors? Will he therefore explain why he has failed yet again to make a final decision on the draft Royal Mail package that was produced more than seven months ago? Is not the truth that he will not stand up to pressure from the unions and Labour Back Benchers, and that he rejected the idea of an employee share ownership trust, which Liberal Democrats and Royal Mail management proposed, because of how it would look for the Chancellor when he needs some votes? Is not his failure to make the tough decision to sell shares in Royal Mail the genuine reason why he cannot offer the freedoms and the £2 billion investment fund for post offices that we propose, for which there is a hard-nosed economic and social case?
	The statement and the Government give us the worst of all possible worlds. The Government are betraying our post offices, the Royal Mail and local communities throughout the country.

Alistair Darling: I suspect that many postmasters listening to the hon. Gentleman will despair of any coherent policies from the Liberal Democrats. His proposal appears to be to break up the Royal Mail Group. He complains about competition, yet under Liberal Democrat proposals for privatisation, there would presumably be more competition. He is completely inconsistent. His party would not have the money to support the Post Office network because Liberal Democrat spending commitments do not add up.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the annual subsidy to support the network. It will remain in place throughout the next spending period and it will be needed beyond that. We are prepared to maintain it, yet the hon. Gentleman reverts to the point about the Government taking away business. Most of the business that has gone stems from the decreasing number of people who get their benefits or pensions from the post office. People have been choosing not to do that for the past20 years—it has not happened recently.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the ability to use the internet to renew tax discs. Is he saying that people should not be allowed to do that? It would be astonishing if he told his constituents who use that facility that they cannot do so. Surely all hon. Members, whatever our party, must recognise that changes are taking place in society. People are doing things differently but we want to maintain a national post office network and we need to support it. That means that the Government of the day must find the money to do it. We are willing to do that and to support the Post Office to make the changes that it wants to make.
	As for the Royal Mail, the hon. Gentleman must have missed a rather big statement—one of the first that I made as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—in which we announced a major package of financial support for the Royal Mail Group in May.

Alistair Darling: The annual subsidy is actually £150 million. As I said earlier, that will continue. The £1.7 billion will go to the overall losses of the post office but also to restructuring. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman remembers that when he was Secretary of State for Social Security, as I was, the policy was to provide people with a choice, which they increasingly exercised. I think that I am right that when he was Secretary of State many people started to use bank accounts simply because their working life had changed and they found it more convenient to do so. That is a fact of life, and we must deal with that, as many other businesses have had to do.

Douglas Hogg: The Secretary of State talks about choice, and he is entirely right. He must enable the post office to provide the goods and services that the public want to use. That means reviewing the policies of all public sector agencies and authorities to see whether they can reinstate some of the services that they have withdrawn and at the same time introduce new business.

Alistair Darling: I think I have the gist of what the hon. Lady was saying. I do not agree with her. I am told that she is the great future hope of the Liberal Democrats, but is she saying that there should be no change in the network ever?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman says "No." It is a matter of fact; they closed 3,500 post offices.

Tom Levitt: In my constituency, it is already possible to obtain postal services on a part-time basis from a pub in Rowarth, a church in Dove Holes and a community enterprise in Litton. Given my right hon. Friend's statement, is it fair to say that although the future for stand-alone dedicated post office branches is bleak there will be opportunities for community enterprises and social enterprises to deliver post office services and for other innovative and diverse ways of delivering them in rural areas?

Alistair Darling: Knowing the Liberal Democrats, I have not the slightest doubt that no matter what the consultation concludes, what is said and what the facts are, that will not stop them claiming that every single post office in the world will be closed. I said that the consultation period will end in March—I think that the date is 8 March—and I imagine that March comes before May even in Liberal Democrat-land.

James Paice: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was beginning to think that the "stop Jim" campaign applied to me. This statement is another stage in the decline in rural services that we have witnessed in the past 10 years. The Secretary of State has got this the wrong way round. He rightly talked in his statement about the need for more services and access to more business in post offices, but he couches that in terms of "the Post Office" dealing with such matters centrally. Should he not be setting individual postmasters and postmistresses free through a much freer contract, so that they themselves can use the entrepreneurial spirit that he rightly espouses to get more business, in order to make their businesses viable? Only then should he make any necessary closures. Announcing closures before he gives postmasters and postmistresses that freedom is completely the wrong approach.

Alistair Darling: I did say in my statement that the Government want to continue with that account. However, the Post Office is undoubtedly now offering interest-bearing accounts, and frankly, some people would be better off putting their money into them, rather than having an account that pays no interest. As I said earlier, we want to continue with the current system.

Henry Bellingham: This is a very bleak day for west Norfolk. The heart is going to be ripped out of a lot of small communities, and many vulnerable people will suffer as a result. What discussions did the Secretary of State have with the BBC about the Post Office's retaining the television licensing business?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It would be far more appropriate if the hon. Gentleman himself pursued those points in further parliamentary questions.

Andrew Robathan: Thank you. I shall.

Anthony Steen: I pay tribute to the Minister for the work that he has been doing for the fisheries off my constituency, which has the largest fishing port in England and Wales in Brixham. Why is it that all the forecasts suggest that there will be no more fish to eat in 40 years' time? On Friday 3 November,  The Times had a whole-page article explaining that we were over-fishing and that the common fisheries policy—under which we throw back dead fish if quotas have been exceeded—is not working. Why will the Minister's 20-year forecasts give hope to the fishing industry when all the major forecasters say that in 40 years time we will have no fish to eat?

Ben Bradshaw: No, I do not think that it does. I would not go so far as to boast that we had a wonderful fisheries management system in contrast with other EU countries. The position in the European Union is variable. Countries in northern Europe, such as this one, tend to have a more responsible and conservationist approach. We tend also to have better enforcement which leads to better profitability for our industry and a more sustainable fishery. The answer is not to try to renegotiate our obligations under the European treaty. All the legal advice, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, is that to do so we would have to withdraw from the European Union as a whole, which would be very damaging to our overall economic interests.
	Moreover, fish do not respect national boundaries. If we did not have the CFP, we would have to invent something rather like it, because we have to reach agreements with our neighbours. Even then the agreements would not be much use, because the fish swim around anyway.

Angus MacNeil: Following on from the previous question, does the Minister believe that Norway has a particular advantage, in that it has retained control of all its waters and annually goes toe-to-toe with the entire 25-member-state EU? Does he therefore agree that the suggestion that we should have total control of our waters is a good one?

Ben Bradshaw: I did not mean to sound pompous. I was about to say that ICES has given the same advice for the last five years—a period for which I am not sure that my hon. Friend was in the House. I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) accuses me of being pompous— [Interruption.]
	ICES advice is offered annually. It is the job of ICES scientists to provide advice based on their scientific research, but it is then the job of the Commission, its own advisers and Ministers to come to a balanced view in the light of the mixed fisheries in the North sea. If ICES advice for a zero cod catch had been implemented in the North sea in any one of the last three years, it would have been completely devastating for the UK industry. It would have meant that fishermen could not go out and fish for haddock, prawns and other stocks that are in a very good shape because of the drastic measures on cod. We need to take tough decisions on cod and we may need to take some tough and painful decisions on cod next week, but it does not make sense either in the short or the long term to go for a zero catch on cod because of the devastating impact on the fishing communities in some Members' constituencies.

Joan Humble: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on bycatch. It may be impractical to have a zero quota for bycatch, but there are opportunities to limit it through technical measures. The Minister will know from correspondence over many years on the issue that in the Irish sea, some beam trawlers targeting other species use such a small mesh size that they catch a huge bycatch of cod. That may be one of the reasons why the cod recovery programme in the Irish sea has not succeeded.

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I have spoken to the Scottish Minister and I would be interested to hear how the right hon. Gentleman's conversation with him went. We hope to make progress in time for his fishermen's next season. I acknowledge the problem, as on a visit to the north-east of England I met either the right hon. Gentleman's fishermen or those from a neighbouring constituency. That fishery is very sustainable. Indeed, I was given some of the catch and enjoyed it for a number of days afterwards.
	As I hinted earlier, the main concern about the Commission's proposals as they stand is the rather drastic cut for cod, which we feel, given the relatively good year class of young cod in 2005, would simply result in more discards. We think that the Commission needs to be more sophisticated about how we protect cod, while allowing fishermen to catch those stocks that remain plentiful.
	It is also important that any decisions at next week's Fisheries Council do not undermine our ability, following the review of the recovery programme planned for next year, to deliver a more effective cod recovery programme in the long term. It is also important that the Commission fully recognises the significant contribution that our whitefish fleet, and particularly that of Scotland, has made to reducing effort on cod. The last few years have been a painful readjustment for the industry, involving a significant level of decommissioning. Credit must be given for what has been achieved at EU level.
	I am pleased to say that, as a result of some of those painful moves, we now have the prospect of a much more stable, more profitable and more legal industry that is sustainable for the long term. Indeed, I do not believe that many of my predecessors in recent years could have stood at the Dispatch Box to lead the annual fishing debate and been able to quote an editorial from a recent edition of  Fishing News that says:
	"Strong demand for fish and seafood, sky high fish prices and signs of a growing abundance of fish are creating a greater sense of optimism and hope for the future among fishermen than has been seen for some years."
	Happy Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Bill Wiggin: No doubt, that is because of the excellent Member of Parliament that those fishermen have—who is famous, no doubt, for his helpful interventions on his own Front Benchers.  [Laughter . ] Perhaps if my hon. Friend had allowed me to make a little more progress, we could have said a little more about that.

Alex Salmond: Of course there is no end to the abilities of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who is an experienced Member, and I understand that the regeneration of the lobster stock was entirely due to his own efforts.

Bill Wiggin: Perhaps this is a good moment to mention the difficulties that face lobster fishermen, particularly those in Scotland who are catching lobsters at 87 mm, while those in England will be catching lobsters at 90 mm. That will cause tremendous difficulties in determining whether catching cross-border lobsters that travel from Scottish to English waters will be illegal and for the fishermen of those crustaceans. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which was considerably more helpful than the previous one.  [Laughter . ]
	In October, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea's reports and recommendations on fish stocks affecting UK fisheries were published. Again, the recommendations were grim reading for the fishing industry. For Celtic sea cod, a zero catch was recommended. For cod off the west of Scotland, ICES recommended a zero catch and criticised the current cod recovery plan for being inconsistent with the precautionary principle. For North sea sand eel, the closure of the fishery was recommended until more information becomes available.
	With the scientific advice posing problems for the UK industry and the EU-Norway negotiations yielding mixed results for the UK, now more than ever before, the political decisions made at the December Council will need strong political leadership. The Minister will have to put up a very sturdy fight at the December Council to get the best deal for the UK fishing industry and the 26,000 jobs that depend on it. He cannot afford to repeat the blunder made at the December 2004 Council with regard to the 6,500 square mile cod recovery zone between Padstow and Pembroke. His excuse then was that, "You sometimes get details like this that slip through unnoticed."
	Last year, the Minister's DEFRA colleague and also Northern Ireland Fisheries Minister, the noble Lord Rooker, failed even to show up, despite important discussions taking place on North sea and Irish sea cod quotas. There must not be a repeat of that this year, because all of Britain's fishing industries deserve to be taken seriously and deserve a strong voice. The Minister must make sure that Britain gets its fair share of sustainable stocks. Fishermen have already seen their total landings fall by over 50 per cent. since the 1960s and a third of their colleagues lose their jobs since 1997, and further losses simply might not be sustainable for the communities that rely on them.
	With that in mind, I urge the Minister to take the science offered and decide whether it is right or wrong. If he decides that the science is wrong, how will he ensure that the scientific advice is correct in future? We must have credible science, and if the Minister thinks that it is credible and accurate, he should, as we are so often told, take the scientific advice. However, if it is wrong, should he not agree with the fishermen, particularly those who want larger total allowable catches? It is not possible to disagree with the scientists and disagree with the fishermen. Either the fishermen are right, because they know what they are discarding, or the scientists are right, because their models work. Being somewhere in between might seem expedient, but it cannot be logically defended.

Ann Winterton: This issue is of great interest. Will my hon. Friend clarify whether the review of fisheries policy that Her Majesty's Opposition is undertaking is confined only to the United Kingdom's fisheries policy staying within the common fisheries policy.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful.

Bill Wiggin: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about discards. Nobody would defend the concept of discarding. It is quite wrong. When I took the trouble to go to meet the European Commissioner on fishing, he also recognised that, sadly, progress was not being made that quickly. That is a great tragedy. Over the last year, I have had the privilege of meeting representatives from the fisheries industry and the environmental lobby. Despite their often opposing views, they all agree that the current policies for fisheries management are not working, and discards have highlighted that more than anything else. The current policies are bad for the environment and they are bad for the fisheries industry. The various bodies also agree that changes are needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield required from the Johannesburg commitments. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has stated:
	"Few would disagree with the view that the management of European fisheries over the last 20 years has been a failure."
	Greenpeace has agreed, arguing:
	"The CFP establishes the framework for management of fisheries in European waters, yet it has consistently failed either to conserve target fish stocks or to protect the wider marine environment."
	Although we have needed changes, instead we have had too much talk and seen too little action. Fishermen have accepted the changes—often imposed on them—with dignity and honour. They have accepted that they are a part of perhaps the most regulated industry in the EU. They have also accepted that, especially in the white fish fleet, there is a degree of overcapacity that needs to be addressed. However, what they cannot and should not accept is the inconsistency in Government policy towards their industry.
	The state of our fishing industry is a failure not just of European policy, but of this Government. With that in mind, I would like to draw the attention of the House to decommissioning. Again, it has been discussed in many previous debates. There is agreement between the industry, the Government and the environmental lobby that, despite the decommissioning that has already taken place, the UK fleet, and, in particular, the white fish fleet, is currently at overcapacity. The NFFO has stated:
	"A further round of decommissioning would make the UK fleet more competitive and profitable."
	The royal commission's "Turning the Tide" report stated that
	"the UK government and fisheries departments should initiate a decommissioning scheme to reduce the capacity of the UK fishing fleet to an environmentally sustainable level and move towards managing fisheries on the basis of controlling fishing effort—the overall amount of fishing activity—rather than the quantity of fish landed. It should take steps to ensure such measures are also introduced at the European level."
	With all that support for the original policy and the possible use of European fisheries funds, everyone seems to be left asking the question: why have the Government stalled? It is that slowly grinding process of reform and change that is in need of a catalyst and the Government, sadly, are not providing it. The UK needs to show stronger leadership, but under Labour we have not been getting it, and our fisheries and marine environment lose out. Whether the Minister wants to include fisheries in a marine Bill or not, it is still essential that policies designed to protect the marine environment are integrated with those designed to make use of its economic resources. Indeed, in last year's debate, the Minister himself highlighted the importance of a marine Bill to the marine environment, stating:
	"One reason a marine Bill is so important is that it will enable us to take an overall, holistic approach to the management of our marine environment."—[ Official Report, 7 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 880.]
	In last year's Queen's Speech, we were also promised a draft Bill, but we had nothing then and I doubt that we will get a Bill this year either.
	The Environmental Audit Committee criticised the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for not taking leadership on the marine Bill and my concern is that if DEFRA cannot show leadership on marine matters in the context of the UK, other Departments and the devolved Administrations, how can we expect it to lead the EU and world? Today I asked the Minister when we might expect the marine Bill and he told me that it would be before the next general election. The date keeps rolling back. In the absence of Government action, private and social enterprise and public demand are filling some of that vacuum, with some success. As the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has admitted on his blog:
	"Consumer power and the demand for sustainably caught fish may be the most direct route to change."
	Let us take, for example, the Marine Stewardship Council, which will be celebrating its 10th anniversary next year. Set up by WWF and Unilever, the MSC has certified 21 fisheries as meeting its environmental standards, with a further 20 being assessed. It has its label on more than 400 seafood products, representing 6 per cent. of the world's total edible wild capture fisheries. Bury inlet, the Hastings fishing fleet, and NESFC—north eastern sea fisheries committee—Lobster fishery are among those in the UK that are signed up. Given the growing commercial success of the scheme, I am sure that more and more responsible fishermen will want to sign up. The MSC accreditation scheme could be for sustainable fisheries what free range eggs are for poultry welfare.
	I had the honour and privilege back in May of hosting the Greenpeace reception on sustainable fisheries. I could see how some producers, supermarkets and scientists were working together to create the sustainable fisheries that the Government and the EU are failing to establish. Those examples should be followed. Given the intensive regulation of fisheries management, the Government must be an important part of the change, rather than being a mere bystander, or even getting left behind.
	When I visited the great fishing ports of Fleetwood and Grimsby recently, I could not help but notice the strength of character in those communities.

Joan Humble: I will say what I was going to say in an intervention on the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) in my speech. It is a pleasure to take part in the annual fishing debate again. I want to take the opportunity to outline the good and the not so good, and also the opportunities for Fleetwood's future—I was going to question the hon. Gentleman on that last point. I tell the Minister that I will start with the not so good, which is the catching side of the industry. That links directly to his points about quotas and the December Council.
	Sadly, the numbers of fishermen and vessels in Fleetwood have declined. The Minister said that there are now more fish to catch, but unfortunately there are not as many fishermen in Fleetwood as there were to go out and catch those fish. The document on fishing possibilities for 2007, which was issued by the Commission, proposes yet more cuts in the quotas for the Irish sea, with a 25 per cent. cut for cod, a 15 per cent. cut for haddock, a 15 per cent. cut for sole and a 68.17 per cent. cut for whiting, although I am assured that no one goes out to catch whiting any more. However, it also proposes a welcome 15 per cent. increase for plaice and recommends that the arrangement for nephrops should remain the same.
	Such proposals are being made after we have had year after year of operating the cod recovery programme in the Irish sea. However, there is still no recovery in cod stocks. Fleetwood fishermen have faced slashed quotas, a reduced total allowable catch, a seasonal closed area at spawning time and extensive technical measures. Even under the programme, as I said earlier, large amounts of cod are caught as by-catch by beam trawlers. I am thus pleased that the Commission is examining the cod recovery programmes again to try to analyse why we have not seen the recovery in cod for which we hoped. The fishermen accepted those harsh measures because they hoped that they would lead to a sustainable industry for the future. When the Irish sea cod recovery programme is taken into account as part of the reviews, I urge the Minister to consider the change in circumstances from when the programme was first introduced and to listen to the concerns of the industry.
	As these reviews are driven by science, we must make every effort to ensure that the science is correct and the uncertainties are few. The fishermen and the scientists need to agree so that they will be prepared to work together and believe in each other. As the Minister said, there is not a happy history of that. There should be an opportunity to move forward with fishermen and scientists working in partnership.
	The Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation has produced a radical proposal for 2007 that would incentivise the involvement of fishermen in data collection on stocks through the provision of extra days at sea. I will take a few minutes to outline that programme because it could be a way forward for fishermen and scientists to work together.
	The purpose of the scheme is to secure a dramatic improvement in the quality of data on catches and discards and to make that data available to scientists and managers, in a real-time series, with the objective of ultimately contributing to accurate and credible stock assessment and advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. That would also greatly improve voluntary co-operation between fisheries scientists and the industry. Those participating in the programme would be rewarded with some concessions on days at sea, albeit with an understanding that there should be no overall increase in effort.
	The programme has three elements: a fisheries self-sampling scheme with participation among Irish sea fishermen that is as wide as possible; enhanced observer coverage and discard sampling of Irish sea fisheries, with the result that the self-sampling should be more accurate; and an examination of alternative management measures to reduce discarding and the fishing mortality of cod, including the promotion of more selective gears.
	The new programme has been put to the Commission by the North Western Waters regional advisory council. It has the full support of fishermen, fishery administration and scientific institutions of England, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. If we are ever going to move forward on science and co-operation with fishermen, this is our opportunity. I thus urge my hon. Friend the Minister to examine the proposal closely and support it.
	I will now move on to comment on the onshore fishing industry because the focus in Fleetwood has shifted from catching to processing. As has been the case for catching, the size of the fish processing sector in Fleetwood has reduced substantially over the past two decades, but there has been greater stability in recent years. The recent Poseidon report for Seafood North West said:
	"given appropriate assistance the remaining enterprises could form the nucleus for rejuvenation of the sector".
	That detailed report recommended removing all fish marketing and processing from existing facilities to a new, dedicated fish park on vacant land to the south of the docks. The £4.84 million project would comprise a new fish auction facility, a new small processor block, a new fish waste facility, a new recycling facility, serviced sites for large processors and all the associated infrastructure. Several possible funding options have been identified, although much more still needs to be done. The project offers real hope for the future and for Fleetwood fish merchants, who have shown that they are energetic and competitive and that they want to revive and expend their businesses. The Minister has visited Fleetwood merchants and seen for himself what they are doing. I hope that when the hon. Member for Leominster visited Fleetwood, he saw that although the catching side has declined, the processing side is gaining strength. There is a lot of optimism that that is a way forward for the industry.
	There is widespread recognition of the high-quality, fully traceable fish and value-added products that originate from Fleetwood merchants. Some of the processors supply national supermarket chains and national food service distributors. Through wholesale and retail markets, they supply a catchment area comprising up to 18 million people. The fact that much of the fish that they sell is fully traceable is even more important now, as more supermarkets and customers want information about the sourcing of fish from sustainable species. We have all seen the Greenpeace campaigns and the adverts in supermarkets.
	Those products, supplied daily, are now being sold in supermarket chains throughout France, Spain and Italy, as well as to importers from western Europe. Although there are now fewer boats in Fleetwood dock, a lot of lorries laden with fish leave the town every day to supply markets in this country and in the wider world. In addition, value is added to hundreds of tonnes of non-quota species by initial processing before export to destinations in the far east by a processing company that the Minister has visited. That company has just ended a far east marketing promotion: it exhibited at the Chinese fishing exhibition, as well as in Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore. Through that promotion, it has attracted interest from potential customers in Singapore, Dubai, India, Japan and Taiwan. I feel as though Fleetwood is now the centre of the world, never mind the centre of the north-west fishing industry.
	One of the local initiatives by fish processors is to take advantage of the fisheries science partnership to market and develop a fishery of a non-quota species, razorfish, in the Liverpool bay area. We are also now witnessing in the larger processors and merchants an influx of younger people to fisheries management. They are seeking to develop a long-term, sustainable and competitive industry by utilising the maximum sustainable yield of the present European fisheries management structure, coupled with supplies from abroad. Therefore, just as I urge the Minister to do what he can to support the catching side, I urge him to recognise the importance of the onshore fishing industry—the processing side.
	That leads me to the European fisheries fund and the new processes for that funding. I understand that the EFF has five priority areas, but the bulk of the money will be allocated under axis 4, which relates to "sustainable development of fisheries areas". I am told that the original proposal was for EFF money to be administered through regional development agencies, with the amount each RDA received being based on the regional economic strategy, and for priorities for funding also to be regionalised and based on the RES. However, by my recollection, the fishing industry does not even appear in the Northwest Development Agency's RES.
	I am pleased to be told now that the EFF could be administered in the same way as the financial instrument for fisheries guidance—centrally through DEFRA. I hope that the Minister can clarify that detail and explain further how axis 4 is to be interpreted. Is funding to be made available for redevelopment in fisheries-related areas, for example, for the redevelopment of the Fleetwood market and processing facilities proposed in the Poseidon report; or will funding be available only for developments away from the fishing industry? I hope that my hon. Friend will also consider how RDAs recognise and support the fishing industry. The Northwest Development Agency does an excellent job in a range of areas and is supporting the regeneration of Blackpool, but it does not recognise the fishing industry in Fleetwood. Perhaps it needs to be reminded.
	Finally, I shall comment on the impact on fishing activity of the development of offshore wind farms. A meeting of the North Western and North Wales sea fisheries committee reported:
	"The wind farms will disproportionately affect the local UK inshore fishing industry through loss of accessible fishing grounds. The effect on the larger fleet and vessels from other EU member states will be negligible because they have unrestrained access to more productive areas of the Irish Sea. The further loss of inshore grounds, piled on other pressures on the industry, is likely to make some local vessels uneconomic to operate."
	The Government set up Fisheries Liaison with Offshore Wind—FLOW—
	"to ensure that the commercial fishing and fisheries industries can successfully co-exist with the offshore renewable energy industries and that the needs of the former are taken into account in Government policy on offshore renewable energy."
	Fleetwood inshore boats are certainly not successfully co-existing with offshore wind farms.
	I have had meetings with both the developers of the Barrow wind farm, which is already established, and the companies proposing new wind farms on Shell flat, which is just offshore off Fleetwood and Cleveleys. I have copied to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare letters on the subject that I have sent to the Minister for Energy. Fleetwood fishermen have been trying for a long time to reach an agreement on compensation in relation to the Barrow wind farm.
	I wonder what happened to the discussions held by FLOW. Did it reach any conclusion on setting the ground rules for dialogue between offshore wind farm operators and the fishing industry? Increasing numbers of energy operators are applying for consents for offshore wind farms, so more fishing communities across the UK will need to consider the impact of such developments on their fishing effort. It is important that there are basic ground rules that everybody knows how to work under, because increasing numbers of wind farms are being proposed for the north-west coast, on the Irish sea. That is where my local inshore fleet targets fish, so we need to sort out the problem.

Roger Williams: My hon. Friend reinforces the point that there is considerable scope for taking more advice from the RACs, because they have experience and knowledge of the situation as it really is.
	The RACs are traditionally disadvantaged at this time of year by the lack of advance information on the Commission's proposals. The people on the front line need to be told of the plans for the coming year more than a mere 10 days before the changes will be put into effect. There is no time for them to develop plans, to make representations, or to make their views known on the changes that they will have to work hard to enforce. Will the Minister clarify the way in which the changes to the release of scientific advice will have an effect on the role of the RACs?
	The harvest of the sea is rich in variety and quality. Our fishing industry should be supported and encouraged to gain more value from the stocks that remain available to it. While the Minister will say that we have a highly successful fishing industry, the figures speak for themselves: 6,000 British fishermen have lost their jobs since Labour came to power, more than 1,000 vessels are no longer in action, and total landings are down in quantity and market value.
	Will the Minister give the House his view on fisheries industries also becoming value added businesses where fish is landed in local ports and, as much as possible, processed by local processors? That has massive benefits for local employment as well as ensuring that seafood retains its place as a regional cuisine and cutting down on all-important food miles. In farming, hundreds of new initiatives nationwide have made use of local shops, box schemes and other ways of capitalising on raw products. That engenders a huge amount of consumer enthusiasm for local produce. I can see no reason why that thinking should not be extended to the fishing industry. In the south-west we already have an excellent project, "Invest in Fish South West", which aims to lead to a stakeholder-developed regional strategy for fisheries management in south-west waters and consults organisations as diverse as fishermen's federations, non-governmental organisations and retailers. What more does the Under- Secretary believe that the fishing industry could do to profit further from the increasing demand for local, sustainably sourced, healthy food? What support is available from the common fisheries policy for that?
	All parties agree that more selective fishing gear is required to tackle and reduce the by-catch of cod and other species. Nets with technical adaptations such as sorting grids and escape panels are fundamental to reducing by-catch. Mixed fisheries for haddock and whiting, and some nephrops fisheries are especially worrying because of the high cod by-catch. Fleets in those fisheries should be required to introduce more selective gear immediately. Financial support should be forthcoming from member states and the Commission to assist in implementing such measures. By-catch and discarding is not a new problem and selective gear is widely recognised and available as the solution, but there is a lack of political will to implement its use. In the light of the Commission's review of technical measures to reduce discards, will the Under-Secretary give his views on what he deems to be the difficulties with enforcing such measures throughout UK fleets?
	The success of our fisheries depends on three important factors: ensuring sustainable stocks through protecting marine eco-systems, making our fishing industry profitable and viable, and enabling compliance between all key players, national and international, in that line of business. That can be achieved only if we continue to talk to our European partners and oppose any ratcheting up of the cod recovery plan. EU fisheries management has been a failure and needs reform, but that can be achieved only if we play a part in the proceedings.

Iain Wright: I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, and I will refer to diversification and fishing of stocks other than cod, which will be important for north-east English fishermen over the next few years.
	The move to colder climates is seeing cod replaced by more diverse types of fish. Fishermen in my patch tell me that there is a massive supply of shellfish, of which they could catch a much larger amount than they are allowed at present. That could provide a decent living for them without comprising the long-term sustainability of the stock. I hope that the Minister will push for better shellfish quotas in negotiations with the EU, and I was pleased by his opening remarks in the debate.
	Even more exotic fish are being spotted in my area. Off the north-east coast, there is a growing supply of non-traditional fish species such as tope, sea bass, pollock, brill and turbot. A number of Mediterranean swordfish have even been caught off Hartlepool in the past 12 months. Such developments provide a significant opportunity for diversification away from traditional cod fishing towards other stocks, which could provide local fishermen with an alternative income stream with higher margins.
	It is vital to seek alternatives and opportunities for diversification in the industry. I am keen for the Government to endorse and support enthusiastically the development of recreational charter angling. Over the past 10 years, the Hartlepool marina has become one of the leading centres of maritime excellence in the north of England. It is a great place from which to explore not only the north-east coast but the tourist delights of Northumberland, Durham and York. I am keen to extend that success to the traditional Headland fishing community.
	Providing the means of diversification would be a good way of securing the future of the industry in the town. The recreational charter angling sector provides a great opportunity for communities such as the Headland, and could be part of a co-ordinated tourist and visitor package for Hartlepool. I hope that the Minister will signal his support for providing investment to enable that opportunity to be realised. Will he also expand on his opening remarks about a new strategy for diversification in the new year?
	In the debate last year, the Minister mentioned, as I did, that the new EU grant scheme for fisheries, under negotiation in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, would from 2007 include powers to grant aid for diversification in the fishing industry. What progress has been made on that in the past 12 months? Will money be available to my constituents?
	Fishermen in my patch are also concerned about illegal fishing, both by organised criminals and foreign countries. Boats from foreign countries are entering our waters and fishing blatantly, often running up a British flag, which causes a great deal of anger among local fishermen. There is a perception among my constituents that our regulatory regime is complied with by British boats in a strong and robust manner, but that other countries are perhaps not so diligent. Will the Minister outline in his response what action he plans to take to ensure that a level playing field is refereed consistently, so that British fishermen are not unduly penalised by such illegal practices?
	Fishermen have also expressed concern to me about the rise of organised gangs operating in the north-east fishing industry. I do not have a great deal of information about that—there is an awful lot of rumour and conjecture about it at the moment—but I am worried that exploitation of workers in the fishing industry might be taking place in the north-east, despite the remarkable efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) over the past couple of years. What steps are being taken to ensure that illegal activity that is compromising the livelihoods of honest fishermen and exploiting vulnerable workers is identified and stopped?
	I passionately believe that the future of the fishing industry should be based on effective partnerships of, and consultation with, all relevant stakeholders, particularly fishermen. Therefore, I would like to see much greater involvement and consultation carried out between fishermen working in the industry and the body charged with regulating the industry in my area, the North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee. I am concerned that fishermen in my area have told me that they are not being consulted when changes to regulations and byelaws are being proposed.
	For example, nothing is put in the local press and the committee does not provide a great deal of information, as I found for myself today. I went on the committee's website today, seeking the amendment that concerned some fishermen in my patch—byelaw XXII, concerning the permit to fish for and sell lobster, crab, velvet crab and whelk. However, the website said that it could not be found. That does not exactly inspire confidence that full engagement with stakeholders is being offered and undertaken.
	It is not right for changes to regulations and byelaws that will have effects on the livelihoods of fishermen to be merely posted to a regional, as opposed to a local, newspaper, or for public meetings to be held in Scarborough, Whitby or Bridlington, rather than further north up the coast. I ask the Minister to help ensure that policy making and decisions carried out at a local level with regard to fisheries can be conducted in full engagement with those who make their living from the sea, to allow them to play their part and to ensure that fishing in Hartlepool, after some 800 years, has an optimistic future.

Geoffrey Cox: They are rather simple illustrations, but I shall have to attempt to describe them, instead of showing them to the Minister. The common skate is the species that I understand to be at risk; that is the skate that is abundant in the North sea. However, there is a fundamental difference between the common skate and the thornback ray and the spotted ray, which are both native to the Bristol channel. Those types of ray are the source of the greatest catch for fisherman in the north Devon and Torridge fisheries whose fishermen I represent.
	I am informed that there is no shortage of thornback ray or spotted ray, but the proposal is for the Minister to apply an 85 cm maximum landing length, and that will cause a major problem for the fisheries in my constituency. I am told that—I apologise in advance, as I may use inaccurate terminology—current trawlers tend to wing the ray while they are still at sea. Their fishermen will prepare it, bring it back and land it already winged because that is the economical way of doing it. The Minister's new rule will require them to land the ray whole. That will lead to all kinds of changes to the manner in which they process the ray: they will no longer be able to do what I have described on board so they will have to find space and facilities to do it onshore. It will also add to the economic cost of processing ray. Indeed, I am told that it is likely to add 25 per cent. to the cost, which is enough to turn their current profit into a loss.
	Landing whole and gutted ray severely increases the costs for vessels and processors. The proposal would force the purchase of a new configuration of storage containers for vessels, and by implication because of the size of the rays, fewer could be stored in the same space. Extra staff would be needed onshore for winging and transporting the rays, and extra storage space would be needed in the cold store.
	The real concern of the fisherman I represent, which I hope that the Minister will accept, is that it is not suggested that the same problem exists for the species native to the Bristol channel as exists in the North sea for skate. I would be grateful if the Minister could either provide clarification today on that point, or produce evidence to suggest that that interpretation of the facts is wrong if he thinks that that is the case.
	There is another problem, which applies not only to the fishing of ray in the Bristol channel but also to the fishing of bass. These domestic measures apply only to British fishermen. As I understand it, they are intended to be conservation measures applicable to the 12-mile limit, but the fact is that every day in the Bristol channel, foreign vessels with greater capacity than any of the smaller trawlers and fishing vessels in the North Devon fleet fish right up to the six-mile limit. I have written to the Minister about this issue, so he may be aware of it—I know that he questions some of the evidence—but there is no doubt that huge vessels are operating there. I point out for the benefit of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), in particular, that I have evidence that a Belgian beamer-turned otter trawler with an 883 kW engine is fishing, by historic right, up to six miles off the coast of Wales—and of the south-west—and is landing some 600 boxes of fish at a time, largely, as I understand it, into Welsh ports.
	What is the point of telling British fishermen that they cannot land ray under 85 cm if a Belgian trawler of that size and capacity is able to cruise along the six-mile limit hoovering up ray of any size and land them in a British port? It is obvious why the fishermen of North Devon and Torridge are saying to me, "What are our Government trying to do? They are tying our hands behind our backs and doing precious little to stop foreign vessels from hoovering up fish right on the six-mile limit." Moreover and as the Minister has said several times today, fish respect neither international boundaries nor six-mile limits. A shoal 100 yd inside the six-mile limit can be the same shoal that the Belgian trawler is hoovering up a few yards outside that limit.
	One can understand the sense of grievance and injustice that hard-pressed fishermen in Torridge and north Devon express to me when they see that phenomenon daily, weekly, monthly, annually, without apparent action from the Government. That is the situation regarding ray—a species that is in abundance in the Bristol channel and is not threatened. This maximum landing length has been applied to it because of a mistake of identification; the truth is that another species—skate—in the North sea is threatened and depleted.
	I point out with considerable diffidence, knowing that some experienced anglers are here today representing angling interests, that the same point applies to bass. The angling lobby has applied a great deal of pressure regarding bass landing sizes. However, bass is another staple of the north Devon fishing industry, and once again the Government have chosen to impose a maximum landing size. If I am not mistaken, the Minister has decided on a 40 cm maximum landing size. Why has he chosen that limit? Just a few weeks ago, the Welsh Assembly Minister with responsibility for such matters decided on a different limit—a 37.5 cm maximum landing size. How can the science in Wales be so different from that in England? The waters that the fishermen whom I represent are fishing are precisely the same ones as Welsh fishermen are fishing. This situation will doubtless cause some resentment and tension between Welsh and Devonshire fishermen, although they are working together to resolve the problem. If the limit is 40 cm in England and 37.5 cm in Wales, the risk is that Welsh fishermen—

Austin Mitchell: It was interesting to hear the opening statement of the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) in which he demanded stronger leadership in a direction yet to be decided by the Conservative party— [Laughter.] It is an interesting position, but I hope that the review will not lead to the abandonment of the previous policy of withdrawal from the common fisheries policy, which I, though not Conservative Front Benchers, supported.
	I do not want to start too sycophantically by deferring to the Minister, but I reject the impression created by Conservative Members that we are not getting strong leadership—we are. The Minister is giving the industry strong leadership and has done well in the fight for British interests. We are now gathered together in our annual pressure group campaign to put lead in the Minister's pencil and send him off to Brussels armed to fight for Britain, and I am sure he will.
	I want to make two points about the fight to improve Britain's position in the CFP. It is a disadvantageous position and it is unrelenting, so we have to keep up the pressure. I hope that the Minister's new responsibilities—he is rapidly rising in the hierarchy—will not lead to him take his eye off the ball. We need his effort, his energy and his support for the industry. I note that he ended his speech with a Christmas message of good cheer, which  Fishing News echoed, so it must be true that things are going well. However, I hope that that will not lead to complacency, because there is a battle to be fought at the Council over the various proposals that are being made.
	The industry is doing well because prices are up and the system of registration by buyers and sellers has caused black fish landings to fall rapidly, which has been very beneficial and done the industry good. As I say, though, battles are still to be fought on this front. It has been a better year in the North sea.

Austin Mitchell: I was about to make exactly that point. I am sorry to have given way to the hon. Gentleman at this stage, as I was hoping to provoke him into an intervention later on. I shall now withdraw that provocation.
	It is an improving situation for a highly attenuated industry, which we need to rebuild, but just because things are improving I do not resile in any way from my position on the common fisheries policy. I am sorry if the Conservative party is resiling from it and I am sure that the SNP will not. We would be better off controlling our own destinies. The CFP is, frankly, no policy with which to handle the situation. It produces the crazy anomalies that the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) mentioned in respect of their effect on the fishermen of north Devon, and it proposes blanket measures on the basis that one measure covers any situation when it does not.
	Quotas are an implicit part of the CFP and they lead automatically to discards. Discards increase as quotas fall. It is not a sensible way of handling fishing policy for the whole of the EU waters. It inevitably leads to more by-catching. It leads to blanket measures such as the cod recovery programme, with its associated cuts, and to cuts in catches for other species associated with cod.
	I start with cod because it has become almost a symbol for what the Commission wants to do to fishing—control it. The cod recovery programme is heavily backed by the Commission's environmental department, which has put its oar in and made the programme totally inflexible. In my view, it is totally inadequate.
	The cod recovery programme needs revision and change. The EU-Norway talks, which generally determine what will happen at EU Council meetings, predicted a 14 per cent. cut. I see in  Fishing News—so it must be true—that the Commission is adhering to its hard line on a 25 per cent. cut, which would be disastrous. I hope that the Minister will fight the good fight and not be moved by all the environmentalists who are lamenting in advance the death of cod, when that is not on the agenda. Those environmental panics are damaging to sound, continuous, steady judgment in the fishing industry. I also hope that he will not be moved by European pressures, because Europe tends to respond to such environmental panics.
	I am getting fed up of the jokes: when I go to restaurants, I am told, "You don't want any cod, do you? You cod killer!" It has just gone too far. Cod is not in danger of extinction. I do not know what the future will be, but neither does the Commission. The situation is very different in the North sea from that in the Irish sea, which tells me that common measures are not a good idea. I do not know whether cod stocks will recover. We do not know how much of the decline in cod stocks is due to global warming and the stocks moving further north because the whole sustaining environmental support mechanism is not responding well to global warming. As the waters warm, there is less sustenance for the cod. Is that the case, or is it not the case? I do not know, but the Commission does not know either.
	If the decline is due to global warming, the cod will not come back, and therefore we can increase fishing quotas for haddock and put more pressure on the other stocks. We arrive at such conclusions by a very inadequate method. As the Minister pointed out, ICES advice is annual. If we had accepted that advice each year for the past five years, we would have closed down the entire east coast fishing industry and stopped cod fishing altogether. That is no basis for effective management.
	We must ask what the Commission means by the footnote suggestion that cod should be a by-catch only species. What does that mean? What would be the consequences? Is it a serious proposal, or is it not? I ask because there are not many targeted cod fisheries left, but one of them is off the Yorkshire coast. That targeted cod fishery is small but important to those people who are involved in taking the cod. We need to know what the Commission is proposing by the mention of a by-catch only species. It is seems clear that the cod recovery programme 2002 was conceived in haste and is unrealistic. It assumes that nothing will change unless there is an annual increase rate and spawning stock recovery, which is not happening. Without that annual increase, further reductions are triggered. It is based on a panic attitude in Europe—again, in ignorance of whether or not global warming plays a part.
	Evidence from Greenland—where there has been a substantial fall in cod stocks, but where they are now recovering—shows that this could be a cyclical thing. The way in which stocks are recovering indicates that cod, being a fecund fish, recovers fast once the recovery begins. That could happen in the North sea. Indeed, evidence shows that it is already beginning in the North sea. That is more reason to oppose the Commission's proposal. Incidentally, with Greenland stocks, it is more reason for the Government to fight to retain our 2.9 per cent. share. Although small, that share of east Atlantic cod is crucial to the Humberside fishing industry, and it is guaranteed by the European economic area agreement. I am sure that the Minister will fight to retain it.
	Given the state of doubt about the argument, I welcome the North sea regional advisory council's symposium, which is proposed for next year. The Commission itself should be holding that symposium. It will bring together world experts to tell us what the situation is and what the prospects for cod are. Until then, we do not have a real, scientific, intellectually credible basis for our judgments. In default of that and with the evidence from the North sea, I hope that the Minister will fight the proposals made in July for a 25 per cent. cut to the total allowable catch for cod and cuts in associated species, which  Fishing News tells us that the Commission is sticking to. That is the position that should be taken, as the regional advisory councils wanted. He should demand a roll-over in relation to cod.
	As the Minister does that, I hope that he will try to end the perverse incentive in relation to the days at sea limitation. A reduction in that context will accompany the 25 per cent. reduction. The limitation means that those using bigger meshes, which are used for catching cod and haddock, are penalised. Those using bigger meshes should get more days at sea, but in fact more days at sea are given to those using meshes between 70 and 99 mm. That is crazy, because those small meshes catch more immature cod and haddock and therefore damage the stock. Why should those using smaller meshes have the incentive of more days at sea than those using larger meshes? It seems ridiculous. It is certainly anomalous.
	The Commission proposes that quotas should be slashed in relation to other stocks, when the scientific advice is unclear or absent and when the TAC has not been fully caught by the nation state. I am talking about dabs, flounder, turbot and, in particular, North sea whiting, which is crucial to our industry in Yorkshire and Humberside. All of them are small catches, but their value to the ports involved is large. Why should quotas for those species be cut in the way that the Commission proposes? That is a perverse incentive to catch 100 per cent. of a small quota on the grounds that, "If you don't use it, you lose it." The quota should be rolled over in the same way as it is for other stock. I hope that the Minister will resist those proposals for cuts, particularly the whiting cuts. Whiting seems to be in abundance in the southern North sea and it is becoming very important. I hope that he will also try to ensure that the by-catches—particularly in edible stocks—from industrial fishing, which are at a low ebb because of the eel and pout difficulties, will be transferred to our edible catch quotas so that they can be caught and eaten, instead of being destroyed.
	The east coast industry has compensated for the decline of white fish by turning to lobsters and shellfish. We have been having problems with French vessels off Flamborough Head. I do not propose that the Minister should send a gunboat—much as I would love him to. The NFFO has reached an agreement with 10 of the French fishermen that that friction will be ended, but two of the 10 vessels, which are run by skippers who were described to me by east coast fishermen as "nutters", are not abiding by the agreement that their eight colleagues have reached. I hope that fishery protection, which usually stays clear of these arguments, can be used when such depredation is being carried out by maverick fishermen who are not part of the agreement. I make that point for the east coast.
	Let me make a few further points, having withdrawn the provocation to cause my friend, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), to intervene. Why have the Government dropped decommissioning? It is still necessary, and having spent £226 million on it, this seems a daft time to claim that it is not a good use of public money. The Minister and the Department have indicated that the money is being put back into fishing. In many cases it is, but decommissioning extinguishes both a vessel and a licence. If a fisherman who is decommissioning holds further licences and puts money into them, it is no great problem, because the number of vessels fishing and the number of licences is being diminished. Opportunities for other fishermen are created by decommissioning, so I fail to see why we have stopped it. If the problem is not the money that is available due to the Department's problems with agricultural payments, what is the real problem?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) talked about wind farms. They give rise to not only a problem regarding compensation, but problems with respect to access and proximity. The exclusion areas demanded around wind farms are the same as those that are deemed appropriate for oil rigs. However, oil rigs are manned platforms—they support a working population—while wind farms are very different. If vessels were prepared to do so, they could achieve close access. Wind farms cover huge areas, so the spaces in the farms could be made available for vessels to access. I hope that the Minister will argue against the different view that the Department of Trade and Industry takes on this point.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood talked about the redevelopment of the industry and the European finance that is available. I would make the same point. In Grimsby, we are proposing to redevelop the industry on the Celsius site on the fish dock, which would leave other land available for a mass property redevelopment of the dock area. I think that that will need an element of European or Government funding.
	I pay tribute to the Department for the support it has given the regional advisory councils. The RACs are now recognised European institutions, so they get European funding, although it is fairly minimal. The RACs are becoming—they have the potential to be even better—a source of thoughtful, considered and developed advice and expertise for the industry. They thus need a kind of secretariat and research ability so that they can further provide that advice. We are gradually developing—the Minister has done a lot to move us in this direction, so congratulations to him—an industry that listens to advice more than it did, as opposed to an angry crowd of self-employed fishermen who are up in arms against the Government and feeling a sense of grievance. Fishermen are seeing the virtues of organisation and arguments that are based on research and evidence. The RACs represent a fundamental way in which that can be provided. I am grateful for the support that they have been given, but ask that it be strengthened so that they can become the agencies for the education and consolidation of the industry that we all want them to be.

Alex Salmond: I have been participating in the annual fisheries debates for some 20 years. The House will be distressed to know that this could be my last such contribution, as duty may call elsewhere. I can see how distraught Santa Claus—the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare—is. The Conservatives will not want to hear this, because they have no great prospects, but there is to be an election in Scotland next May, and certain indications of public opinion suggest that there is a reasonable prospect, if the Scottish people so wish, of my being called to the post of First Minister for Scotland. But do not worry: in that position, if I accede to it, I shall cast an eye over the fisheries debate and look favourably on the progress of the Minister and other former colleagues.
	It has been my pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) for all of those 20 years—I believe that he has spoken in every single one of the debates. [Hon. Members: "Same speech."] That is not entirely correct. The odd paragraph changes from year to year. I say as kindly as I can to the Conservative Front-Bench team that, in my humble opinion, the hon. Gentleman has forgotten more about fishing than they have ever learned. Perhaps the Conservatives should invite the hon. Gentleman on to the review that is to produce their policies. I think that the new Conservative Member, the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox), who made a detailed speech—the one that settled the bass issue—should be drafted on to that review immediately, because whatever else may be said about him, his grasp of the detail of the industry is impressive after so short a period.
	No one disputes the knowledge and expertise in the industry of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. The fact that I had the pleasure of serving as his deputy—his assistant-chairman—of the all-party fisheries group for some of his 15 years as chair has nothing to do with the praise that I am lavishing upon him.
	In those 20 years, I have come to understand the importance of endangered species. I refer of course to Conservative MPs representing fishing constituencies. In the early years of these debates, the Government Benches—the Conservatives were in government then—were crowded with MPs representing points all round the coast. All of them were deeply frustrated with their Government's policy, but they were there, none the less. Nowadays, with the exception of the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton), who always attends fisheries debates, Conservative MPs with fishing interests are few and far between. They have been replaced by some Liberals on the south and south-west coast of England and replaced almost in their entirety in Scotland. It is a particular regret that the one Conservative Member who represents a fishing constituency in Scotland could not attend the debate today.
	Another endangered species is, of course, Scottish Labour MPs who represent fishing constituencies. I remember when the redoubtable Norman Godman used to speak in these debates with the same frequency as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and I did. Today, his successor as an MP, the hon. Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns), put in a cursory appearance in the early part of the debate, but now he has, no doubt, gone to perform his duties as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. It is a matter of regret that no Labour Back-Bench Member representing a Scottish constituency has chosen to attend this fisheries debate, because fishing is an industry that should concern us all.

Alex Salmond: The point is well made. During the 20 years in which I have participated in such debates, all of us, regardless of party, have argued for a longer period of decision making, so that there is no December crunch. I have heard that argued from the Dispatch Box, and I have heard declarations to that effect from European fisheries Commissioners, but the change never seems to happen. We always end up with the December crunch, which leaves all fishermen battling for the viability of their industry.
	My hon. Friend's intervention leads me on to a point that has been made by hon. Members of all parties about the debt that we owe to fishing communities and the industry. This year, the losses of men and boats are particularly felt in Scotland as a result of the loss of the Meridian. That has had a profound impact on the fishing community of Fife, which, as the Minister knows, is a close-knit, and now relatively small, fishing community. By the end of the debate, I hope that the Minister can update us on the progress of the search and rescue mission that is under way as we speak, but none of us should forget the debt that we owe the industry. That is why every Member representing a fishing community should be proud to be a fishing MP, and to represent a part of the coastline.
	I want to make three points to the Minister, the first of which relates to the impact of climate change on what is happening to the cod species. On many occasions, the Minister has tried to typify my contributions on the subject as a "sod the cod" approach, but I have never advocated that approach and never will. My point, and the point made by many fishermen—and, increasingly, marine scientists—is that cod should not be regarded as the only species in the sea. It is not the only template by which to judge our entire fisheries policy. In a mixed fishery, the obvious problem with pursuing a cod recovery plan as the central plank of fisheries policy is the fact that the related species are also affected by the reduction in effort. There will be a sub-optimal, less than ideal position, as regards the fishing effort applied to the species. It is a paradox that when one species is in very short supply, it affects other species in much more plentiful supply. The decline of cod in certain areas has resulted in a vast increase in other species, and an illustration that I have given before, and will give again, is that of the Fladden grounds. When I first contributed to these fishing debates, the Fladden was known as a shrimp fishery. It was an important fishery, particularly for the Fife fleet, but it was not a fishery of substantial value. Now, those grounds, off Arbroath, are one of the most lucrative fisheries for prawns—or Scottish langoustines, as we must and should call them now—in the whole of Europe. It is a vast fishery. The decline of cod, which predates on prawns and nephrops—langoustines—has resulted in a substantial expansion of its prey, which have become the dominant species.

Alex Salmond: I would have to be a little more than First Minister for a devolved Scotland to engage in that. I would have to be Prime Minister of an independent Scotland. I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised the point. In fact, I was not criticising him. I was speaking about one of his Back Benchers, who seemed to be convinced by the CFP.
	In many debates over the past few years, the Conservative party had a certainty on the issue. That certainty seems to have disappeared entirely. When Scotland becomes independent, we shall be within the European Union. We will inherit the same treaty obligations as this Government and previous Governments have signed. We will inherit the ones that we like, and we will inherit the ones that we dislike. That position has been confirmed by Lord Mackenzie-Stuart—in work commissioned by the Conservative party, incidentally. It has been confirmed by Emil Noel and Maître De Roux—virtually every major authority on EU legislation.
	The question is whether we can negotiate to reassert natural control in terms of the fisheries policy of the European Union. First, is that desirable? I say it is. The Conservatives used to say it is. They are currently in limbo. Secondly, can it be done? We would have to establish whether there was support from other Europeans for such a policy. I therefore turn to the proceedings of the Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament of 11 January 2005—a committee across the member states, which overwhelmingly passed an amendment to remove exclusive competence over fisheries from the putative European constitution, indicating a substantial measure—a wave—of dissatisfaction with the results and consequences of the common fisheries policy across the European Union.
	Shamefully, this Government have never chosen to make fisheries a priority so that we could base our negotiations on such a position; indeed, no British Government have done so. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) the former Conservative leader who now speaks so eloquently from the Back Benches, made that point well during the election campaign, assuring us that if he became Prime Minister, he would be prepared to veto the European constitution on the basis that fisheries would not be an exclusive competence. I hope that once the Conservatives' policy committee finally comes to a conclusion, similar resolve is shown by the current Conservative leader as was shown by his predecessor.

Michael Weir: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point. It has always struck me as a Scottish Member who loves a bit of haddock that, although cod are supposedly in danger of extinction, I can go into any supermarket in London and find freezers full of cod but little haddock. Is there not a wider point to make about changing eating habits to conserve various stocks?

Emily Thornberry: The hon. Gentleman and I are at completely cross purposes, and I think that that illustrates well what I am saying. Whichever people won the cod wars, the cod did not win, as there are so few cod left. In the great scheme of things, we all lose out if there are no cod left.
	Apart from discussing the issue of cod, I want to give a voice to those people in my inner-city constituency, particularly children, who feel strongly about fish and the possibility that this generation might be the one that eats all the fish. They fear that, when they grow up, there will be few fish left off the coast of their island. They rely on us and this generation of politicians to do something about that: to be bold and brave, to stop just talking and discussing whether people in Iceland have done better than us, and to focus instead on ensuring that we have sustainable stocks of fish around our island.
	As I understand it, in the past 15 years, instead of taking the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea's scientific advice on what the quota should be, we have allowed quotas 30 per cent. above the recommended level. In the past five years, ICES has recommended a zero catch for cod in the North sea, Irish sea and the west of Scottish waters. Fisheries Councils have repeatedly ignored that advice. I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who says that cod are not in danger of extinction, that he does not know whether cod stocks will recover, that global warming might have something to do with it, and that the cod might have gone north. However, nobody seems to be able to find the cod. One possibility is that we have caught them and eaten them. I am told that stocks have fallen in Greenland, so they are not hiding there. Wherever they are hiding, we do not seem to be able to catch them.

Emily Thornberry: I am not seeking to destroy the fishing industry. I am seeking to ensure that there is a fishing industry in five, 10 or 50 years. In 50 years' time there should still be a fishing industry, but there will not be if we carry on catching fish. Of the eight main species of fish that we catch from the North sea, five are being overfished. My constituents and I understand that.

Emily Thornberry: I agree, and that leads me on to my next point.
	During the brief period that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been going around my primary schools—there are more than 20—and talking to their pupils, particularly about the marine Bill and its importance. I have been struck by the passion of such young children when they are told that we are overfishing five out of eight species and that there is a possibility of there no longer being the traditional fish that they thought would always be in the seas because they thought they would always be safe from extinction. When they are told that we are running out of such fish and that we have to take radical steps, they are spurred into action.
	I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have posters from Rotherfield primary school—although I am not allowed to show them as we are not allowed to use visual aids in the Chamber. I also attended an assembly of class 6 of St. Mary Magdalene primary school at which pupils got up and explained how important it was that we preserved our fish. A little child of about 10 years of age stood up and made an impassioned speech about how important it is that there is still fish in our seas. The point that I have made about fish and chip shops was her idea; she asked her fellow pupils whether they wanted to grow up in a world in which when they go to a fish and chip shop they only get chips. That makes the point absolutely clearly.

Martin Salter: Fishing debates tend to be dominated by MPs representing coastal constituencies with strong commercial fishing interests. We heard an interesting contribution from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox), but all hon. Members who care about the aquatic environment will be interested in a wonderful book by  The Daily Telegraph's environment correspondent, Charles Clover, called "The End of the Line". Vivid and eye opening, it argues that our passion for fish is simply unsustainable.
	Seventy five per cent. of the world's fish stocks are now fully exploited or over fished. The most popular varieties risk extinction in the next few decades. The problem with commercial fishing is that fish are a wonderful source of protein, for poor countries' swelling populations and—because they are generally better for us than meat—for health-conscious gourmets in richer places.
	As our appetite for fish has grown, so has our ability to catch them. Modern gadgets such as sonar, global positioning, systems plotters, sea mapping software, echo sounding, radio beacons and bathymetric generators enable today's vast fishing boats to find and catch their prey as never before.
	Some types of fish, such as prawns and salmon, can be farmed, but industrial fishing remains largely a matter of hunting down prey—what Charles Clover calls "fish mining". That is an apt term, as commercial fishermen now haul fish out much faster than they can replenish stocks.
	As my hon. Friend the Minister noted earlier, the global outlook is extremely bleak. In many places, certain species may never recover, but some fisheries policies have been proved to work. Mr. Clover suggests that we opt for independent management, long-term transferable quotas, marine reserves and, above all, much greater openness. Ideally, that openness can be achieved by satellites and the internet revealing what every boat is doing. In other words, Mr. Clover is arguing for a Marine Bill—or probably a Marine Bill-plus. If hon. Members are short of Christmas reading, I strongly recommend "The End of the Line" as a stocking filler.
	I want to focus on issues related to freshwater fisheries, especially in the context of today's welcome announcement by the Minister that the Government are to implement the bulk of the recommendations of the salmon and freshwater fisheries review carried out in 2000 by Professor Warren and her committee. The history of fisheries legislation, especially in respect of freshwater fisheries, is somewhat chequered. A previous Government commissioned the 1961 Bledisloe report, but anglers had to wait 14 years for the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. We have had to show great patience in the six years since the Warren review, but the Government are to be commended for halving the time that it has taken them to respond.
	There is a strong case for new legislation that impacts on freshwater fisheries and the marine environment. I am particularly grateful for the briefings that I have received on the matter from Adrian Taylor, fishery and policies manager at the Environment Agency. I am also grateful to the Atlantic Salmon Trust, The Salmon and Trout Association, and the Fisheries and Angling Conservation Trust. They have made representations to the Minister, who has had the good grace to listen. They have presented a powerful case for new legislation on salmon and freshwater fisheries.
	Fish are a key component of a healthy, freshwater ecosystem. Their presence in our rivers and lakes shows that water quality is good and that aquatic and waterside habitats are thriving. The return of salmon to rivers such as the Tyne and now even the Mersey, and the presence of fish in many other once heavily polluted waterways, demonstrates how successful efforts to clean up the damage caused by industrialisation can be affected. In rural areas, fish are sensitive to diffuse pollution from agriculture and other sources and declines in fish numbers are often a good indication of wider environmental problems.
	Efforts to conserve and improve the aquatic environment are vital to the health of fish populations, as they are for other aquatic forms of life. However, fish differ in one significant respect: they are also an important recreational resource. There are some 3.5 million to 4 million anglers in England and Wales, making angling one of the largest outdoor participation activities. Salmon, sea trout and eels are exploited for food both legally and, sadly, illegally. Those factors give fish an economic and social significance that mark them out, but they also impose threats that other types of life form do not face. For those reasons, freshwater fisheries have long been subject to specialised legislation. Legislation dates largely from the 19th century. Although it has been updated from time to time, its main elements remain unchanged.
	I want to draw attention to six specific areas of concern that a new fisheries Bill, or new fisheries legislation enacted through regulation or secondary legislation, could deliver. Climate change in itself could, and probably will, lead to major changes in freshwater habitats. Regulators need to be able to respond to those changes and to have powers to introduce restrictions on fishing in extreme drought conditions.
	Moving fish from one water or even one part of the country to another can threaten biodiversity by displacing native with introduced species. We all know about the trouble caused by the American signal crayfish in running water—almost the length and breadth of England, if not farther abroad. Existing powers to control such movements are, quite frankly, inadequate and more comprehensive powers are needed. That was a central recommendation of the Warren review.
	Salmon and sea trout stocks are still subject to commercial exploitation in net fisheries. I congratulate the Minister on successfully helping to negotiate the buying out of the Irish drift nets and action on the North sea drift net fishery, but where stocks are threatened, regulators need clear powers to reduce exploitation to safe levels.
	The eel may not be particularly fashionable. It is exploited commercially and eel stocks are now in a critical state, having fallen by more than 90 per cent. in recent years. Under existing regulation, there is absolutely no control over fishing for eels. The wildlife trusts have introduced otters into many of our river catchments. That is to be welcomed in some ways, but in others it should ring alarm bells because the eel is the staple diet of otters. Without eels in our rivers, the otters will start to predate on indigenous species and migratory fish species.
	Fish thefts have been much in the news—and not just thefts from European workers who are not used to our tradition of catch and release, which has caused problems and threatens community cohesion in some areas where urban fishing is important. Fish thefts also take place for commercial reasons. A specimen carp can be worth more than £10,000; a carp of about 20 lb will attract an asking price of about £10,000 or even £15,000. The current penalty for fishing without a rod licence is £2,500. The current penalty for stealing fish under the Theft Act 1968 is £200. What sort of deterrent is a £200 fine to gangs of fish rustlers who are in it for commercial gain?
	Many freshwater fish migrate in river systems. Those fish are not just trout, salmon or sea trout, but other fish moving from one area of a river to another at different times of the year to seek spawning beds. Those movements are often hindered by obstructions, such as redundant dams, mills or weirs. The Environment Agency needs new powers to tackle such obstructions.
	Ivor Llewelyn from the Atlantic Salmon Trust and Paul Knight from the Salmon and Trout Association wrote:
	"The deficiencies of current legislation have long been recognised, and in 1996 the Labour Party's Charter for Angling promised a thorough review if the party were returned to power."
	One of the first things that Lord Cunningham, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, did when we achieved office in 1997 was to commission the review of salmon and freshwater fisheries legislation under Professor Lynda Warren. It is appropriate now, several years down the track, that my hon. Friend the Minister is able to implement that. It may have taken six years, but I congratulate the Government on delivering on an electoral promise if only by a slightly different route.
	I referred to Labour's charter for angling, which I helped to draw up in 2005. It has been described as the most comprehensive document on Britain's most popular participant sport. It contains a section entitled "Angling and the Law", and it is appropriate to use the debate to find out how well the Government have lived up to the promises that we made. My hon. Friend the Minister can relax; the record is fairly good. We say:
	"Angling is a well regulated, lawful and responsible pastime, which delivers huge benefits to society as a whole."
	The greatest threat to angling comes from the destruction of the aquatic environment through loss of habitat, pollution or the excessive abstraction of water. However, a tiny minority of animal rights extremists have occasionally sought to disrupt angling events and competitions. Their threat to angling has been grossly over-stated by the supporters of hunting, who clearly wish to enlist the help of anglers in seeking to overturn the ban on hunting passed by Parliament.
	In 2005, we promised:
	"Labour will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect angling and anglers from those extremists who seek to disrupt the sport or intimidate people from going fishing."
	Earlier this year, there was an appalling attack by hunt saboteurs in the north-west. They attacked three fly fisherpeople, one of whom was an elderly person and another a woman. Those thugs were armed with baseball bats and wore balaclavas. In fact, a syringe was plunged into the arm of one of the anglers. The Lancashire constabulary was nothing short of pathetic. Those characters were apprehended by the fishery owner. Their Transit van was blocked in and the police helicopter was activated, but still no arrest was made.
	The police need to raise their game, but the good news is that Parliament has done so. Many hon. Members will have forgotten that, when we voted for the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, we created in part 4 a new offence: harassment intended to deter lawful activities. With the new laws that enable action to be taken and criminal charges to be brought against those who seek to disrupt angling or other lawful activities, whether in the urban environment or in the countryside, it is important—I want to put it on record—that the police use the powers that Parliament has given them.
	I was particularly grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) for agreeing to meet representatives of angling governing bodies and me to explore in some detail how we can persuade the police to use the legislation that is now on the statute book.
	In the charter for angling, we made a case for a new marine Bill. I am not surprised that the shadow Minister refers to it—he is right to do so—and I join him in wanting to keep up the pressure on the Government to deliver a new marine Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister wants to deliver a new marine Bill, and it is a question of getting the devolved Assemblies in Scotland and Wales singing from the same song sheet.
	We said in our charter:
	"Labour also recognises the need for marine legislation to protect sea fish stocks in coastal waters.
	Following the publication of the PMSU report on how to ensure a sustainable future for sea fishing in all its forms, DEFRA has undertaken a wide-ranging consultation in which Recreational Sea Angling has been an active participant. The key outcomes sought from a new Marine Bill are...protection of fish stocks and spawning grounds"—
	something particularly dear to my heart—
	"the creation of Marine Conservative Zones...introduction of Minimum Landing Sizes for certain sea fishing species",
	on which there was an exchange between Opposition Members and myself earlier,
	"better management of inshore waters... proper representation of recreational sea angling and an overhaul of the current Sea Fisheries Committees."
	We promised management of fish stocks, such as bass, wrasse and mullet, specifically for angling, and we had a commitment to a marine Bill in DEFRA's five-year plan.
	The Labour party should be proud of the fact that it has been the first political party to acknowledge and quantify the tremendous economic benefit of recreational sea angling. I was delighted that the Minister announced that we will have a sea angling strategy, but a strategy will not mean a lot unless it exists in the context of a marine Bill and of ensuring that fish stocks that have been decimated by the over-exploitation of the sea—as graphically outlined in "The End of the Line" by Charles Clover—have at least some protection in those areas of the sea that come within the ambit and control of the Government.
	The Minister will be aware that WWF, an important stakeholder, published a draft marine Bill last year. It quoted—perhaps not embarrassingly, but certainly trenchantly—from the Government, when they stated their commitment
	"to introduce in the next parliament a bill to ensure greater protection of marine resources, and simplify regulation, so that all uses of the sea...can develop sustainably and harmoniously."
	I look forward to a marine Bill emerging. If that does not happen during this parliamentary Session, I would certainly like to see a White Paper published and the Government's broader intent set out.
	I will turn to the broader issues facing our fisheries and the sport of angling, which depends on healthy fisheries for its survival. Anglers have undoubtedly been a major custodian of the aquatic environment for at least two centuries. Fisheries management maintains and improves habitats on behalf of anglers with the knock-on benefit that what is good for fish is invariably good for other wildlife dependent on the aquatic environment. Although angling is reliant on fisheries, the part played by the sport in managing aquatic habitat should still be officially recognised by the Government as bona fide conservation. We heard earlier from other Members that at least 3.5 million people fish in freshwater and the sea each year. That means that we are delivering an economic benefit estimated at about £3 billion—a significant proportion of which relates to remote rural communities, where other income can be hard to find. Angling, therefore, is of enormous economic benefit, as well as sporting value.
	More recently, there has been recognition of the benefit that angling can bring in relation to policies on crime prevention and social exclusion. Angling is a healthy outdoor recreation with a proven ability to take participants away from an increasingly frantic lifestyle and relieve the stress of modern living. Angling has proved to be an excellent conduit for inspiring disadvantaged and vulnerable youngsters to become involved in a healthy pastime and to learn respect for living creatures, with the result that significant numbers of those youngsters can be turned away from crime and drug dependency.
	I pay particular tribute to a constituent of mine, Les Webber, who set up Angling Projects in Wraysbury, just outside London. His angling resource centre is used by the Metropolitan police, youth groups, and groups of teachers who are responsible for children who are at risk of school exclusion. Many young people have benefited from the tireless efforts of Les and his team of volunteers. I also pay tribute to Mick Watson, who has been seconded from the Durham constabulary and runs Get Hooked on Fishing in the north-east, in Bishop Auckland. He is dealing with kids from ex-mining communities—kids who live in communities where the recidivism rate is monstrous and where there is a huge dependency on drugs and crime. The vast majority of kids who have gone through Mick Watson's projects have managed to find jobs and turn their lives around, and have benefited from the introduction to the sport. Local authorities can play their part, as well. Reading borough council has put funding into a joint package with a local business and the Environment Agency and has established the Reading angling action project, which is introducing thousands of local youngsters to angling on our local rivers and ponds.
	The resources on which angling depends are inevitably healthy fisheries and healthy water. The Government must commit to protecting the aquatic environment from water abstraction, inadequately treated sewerage, point-source and diffuse pollution and urban run-off. A properly funded programme of capital water supply projects is required to relieve abstraction pressure from severely impacted catchments, together with the modernisation of sewerage treatment infrastructure throughout England and Wales.
	It was only the week before last that I had the privilege of being one of the parliamentary sponsors of the blueprint for water campaign, which is a unique coalition of organisations representing some 6 million people in this country. We brought together the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wildlife Trusts, Waterwise, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, the Salmon and Trout Association, the National Trust, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Anglers Conservation Association and the Association of Rivers Trust.
	As much as Opposition Members might not like it, the driver for clean water will be the European water framework directive in 2015. We face a huge challenge in this country to come anywhere near delivering our obligations under the directive. I encourage all hon. Members who care about the aquatic environment—and who are able to do so—to add their names to early-day motion 306, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), an excellent former Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
	The 10 steps to sustainable water are: wasting less water; keeping our rivers flowing and our wetlands wet; pricing water fairly and ensuring that we have a proper, comprehensive system of metering; making polluters pay; stopping pollutants contaminating our water; keeping sewerage out of homes and rivers and off our beaches; supporting water-friendly farming; cleaning up drainage from roads and buildings; restoring our rivers from source to sea; and retaining water on floodplains and wetlands. It is nothing short of a scandal that acres upon acres of floodplain have been covered in concrete. People should not wonder why communities around them flood—floodplains are there for a purpose.
	Inland fisheries and angling in the UK are in good heart under the Government. The black propaganda campaign of the Countryside Alliance and others has failed. Labour has no secret agenda to ban angling. Labour's agenda is to encourage more people to take up fishing. Labour has set the Environment Agency a requirement to increase rod licence sales by 10 per cent. by 2010.

Emily Thornberry: I want to make it perfectly clear—I thought I had done so—that the subject is important to all of us. That was the point of my involvement in the debate. I specifically said that I understood that the fishing industry has an enormous impact on particular communities in Britain, but we have to be responsible. I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says about fishermen in his constituency. In fact, I have been to his constituency, and I met fishermen there, went fishing with them, and spoke to them about the difficulties that they face. I am aware of the issues, but communities other than the fishing industry community ought to be represented in the debate.

Michael Jabez Foster: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to other hon. Members for the fact that I was not present at the beginning of the debate. I am thus more privileged to be called to speak.
	The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said that he may not be available to attend next year's debate. I am pretty confident that he will be, but I am not so sure about my own interest in next year's debate if we do not sort out something for the under-10 m fishermen in my constituency, Hastings and Rye.
	Yesterday, I led a delegation to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and we were able to tell him just how dire and desperate is the position of those small-boat fishermen in the current situation. Paul Joy, the chairman of Hastings Fishermen's Protection Society, his colleague Graham Coglan, and Ron Simmons from the Rye Fishermen's Association told him that in a year's time there will not be an industry in Hastings or Rye unless something is done about the quota—that is what it is, in effect, although it is called "licensing conditions"—for the under-10 m vessels in my constituency. I am not ashamed to be parochial about this. I am sure that my comments relate to the whole under-10 m industry, but they are particularly relevant to Hastings and Rye.
	Hastings and Rye have an historical tradition of fishing. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is not here, because it is important for those who do not represent fishing ports to understand the importance of the fishing industry to the wider economy. Of course, in places such as Hastings and Rye its total value is relatively small. However, it is absolutely essential to the well-being of my constituency in terms of its effects on tourism, onshore jobs and the overall economy. In fact, were it not for the fishing industry, why would anyone go to the port of Rye or the old town of Hastings for that day out or weekend away? Hastings' fleet of 29 beach-launched fishing boats is the largest in the UK. It might sound pretty small, but it is big in terms of that sort of operation. About 65 fishermen are directly employed, as well as about 600 people in the wider sphere. Most importantly, those small fishing boats do exactly what the Government say should be done. They are wholly sustainable. In 2004, the Cabinet Office strategy unit's report, "Net Benefits" said:
	"The overarching aim of fisheries management should be to maximise the return to the UK of sustainable use of fisheries resources and protection of the marine environment."
	A year ago, Hastings was officially recognised as being one of the few ports carrying out that aim. Hastings fishermen were accredited by the Marine Stewardship Council as having an eco-friendly fleet as regards three species—Dover sole, herring and mackerel. That means that the small boats working out of the port are confirmed as working in a sustainable way that does not damage stocks and is environmentally sound in maintaining a healthy marine eco-system. As the Sea Fish Industry Authority has said:
	"Hastings is as near a perfect fishery as can be devised."
	So here we have perfection that is likely to disappear if nothing happens.
	The problem is simply that there is not enough catch. We can argue about whether we get our fair share of the overall European pot, and I have sympathy with those who believe that we do not. My local fishermen are always telling me that they blame Ted Heath and the Conservative Government because in 1973 we gave up 88 per cent. of the waters for just 12 per cent. of the total allowable catch. However, that is history. What matters now is how we deal with the quota that we have. The amazing fact, which people do not seem to acknowledge, is that although about 50 per cent. of the manpower—it is still generally manpower—in the fishing industry is in the under-10 m sector and about 50 per cent. is in the over-10 m sector, 96 per cent. of the allowable catch goes to the over-10 m sector and just 3 per cent. to the under-10 m sector. That is crazy and unfair. It causes problems in industries such as that in Hastings and Rye, where the fishermen simply do not get their fair share.
	In the south-east—Hastings is on the south coast—the position is even worse. Of all the 339 licensed fishing vessels in the area, 315, or 93 per cent., are in the under-10 m sector. That sector also accounts for approximately 83 per cent. of the work force. Despite that, the allocation in the region is: for plaice, 78 per cent. for the over-10 m sector and 22 per cent. for the under-10 m sector; for cod, 69 per cent. for the over-10 m sector and 31 per cent. for the under-10 m sector, and for sole, 62 per cent. for the over-10 m sector and 38 per cent. for the under-10 m sector. It is crazy that 80 per cent. of the work force get, on average, less than 30 per cent. of the take. That is wrong. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the unfair allocations carefully. The Prime Minister kindly said that he would bring the matter to the Department's attention.
	Other things can be done. One of the problems is that fishermen who leave the over-10 m sector frequently buy dormant licences from the under-10 m sector and move into it, sharing the small and diminishing proportion of the available quota, thus making the position worse. The bottom line is that my fishermen in Hastings and Rye are being asked to survive on quotas that produce £80 to £100 a week. They will not survive for another year if that continues.
	I wish my hon. Friend the Minister well in the EU negotiations and I hope that there will be greater quotas. Of course, we need to be sensible, but there are cod, and other species are available to be caught. However, there must be a fair distribution of the quotas between all sectors in the fishing industry. It would make little difference to stocks if the share for the under-10 m sector was doubled but it would make all the difference to the viability and survival of the industry, which is so important to the wider economy.

Michael Weir: I am pleased to make a brief contribution to the important debate. My constituency of Angus has a long history of fishing through the ports of Arbroath and the smaller communities along the coast up to Montrose. That history is reflected in the fact that Arbroath and Montrose have two of the oldest lifeboat stations in the country. That shows the huge dangers in fishing that other hon. Members mentioned throughout the debate.
	In my area, the main catch has always been haddock, nephrops—I cannot get into the new way of calling them "langoustines; I cannot get my tongue round that—and crabs. Sadly, in the past 30 years, much of the industry has gone. I find myself in a similar position to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster), because few boats work out of Arbroath. There were about five at the last count but, when I was young, it was a bustling fishing port with a large fish market. All that has gone and what is left teeters on the brink because of the annual anxiety about quotas.
	We have heard about proposals for a cut of up to 25 per cent. in nephrops, which would be disastrous for the local industry. I understand that there is meant to be a roll-over of the total allowable catch in the North sea and on the west coast because there is no new science this year. It is due in 2007. However, an argument has developed between committees about the proposed reduction. I urge the Minister to oppose any such reduction in the talks next week.
	The same applies to monkfish. Again, there is talk of a decrease, against advice, when there should have been an increase in TAC. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said, it is an important fishery. I urge the Minister, on behalf of Scottish interests, to resist any decrease.
	The annual wrangling over quotas oppresses fishing communities every year at this time. I understand that there are proposals to change the system, with some TACs being agreed earlier in the year but others continuing to be decided in December. My understanding is that most of the stocks that affect Scottish fishermen will still be dealt with in December, so the annual depression up to Christmas will continue as we await the outcome of talks. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
	I also urge Members to remember that it is not just the fishing industry that is important but the onshore industry that backs it up. Angus still has a buoyant fish processing industry, which produces a great deal of fish for supermarkets and other outlets up and down the country. The famous delicacy from my area is the Arbroath smokie, which can be bought in many London supermarkets. Again, that industry depends on the supply of haddock, which, as we have heard time and again, is in danger from the proposed cut in the cod by-catch. If that is put into effect, much of the industry will go.
	I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and her proposal for a moratorium on fishing. She never answered the question posed by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster) about what fishermen were to do during such a moratorium. I urge her to consider what happened to the herring industry. In Scotland and the north of England, there was once a buoyant herring industry. People used to move around the coast following the herring. Because of difficulties with stocks, however, the industry was closed down and never recovered. When the herring came back, no one was left to fish it. We should therefore be careful.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) dealt with the question of the role of climate change at some length. I do not intend to repeat what he said, other than to urge the Minister to ensure that such important research is fully taken into account before any more damage is inflicted on an important Scottish industry. I hope that he will take that far more seriously than the Secretary of State for Scotland seems to take it.
	Fishing communities are increasingly cynical about the scientific evidence produced by ICES, which, as we have heard, has for the fifth year in succession asked for no cod to be caught. Year after year, our fishermen have argued that cod are moving north. The new scientific evidence, which has been alluded to, seems to back that up. Certainly, there seems to be plenty of cod in the waters around Iceland and the Faroes. Perhaps the problem is not with the cod so much as with climate change. As most people recognise, however, the effect of climate change on the eco-systems of the sea is a complex matter, and it is vital that that is investigated fully. There is no point in continuing with a recovery plan if there is no chance of the cod coming back, as seems to be the case.
	I repeat the point that I made last year: haddock is suffering from efforts to save cod. If one goes into any supermarket in London, one will find loads of cod for sale, from cod nibbles to fish fingers to whole cod. I appreciate that some of that might be imported cod, and not from local sources, but if more effort was made to encourage people to eat more sustainable fish such as haddock, some of the problem might be tackled. I would be wary of some of the big supermarkets' efforts to claim that they are only getting fish from sustainable stocks. A few years ago, there was a movement towards hoki as an alternative, but I understand that the hoki industry completely collapsed as well, and one rarely sees hoki these days. Again, we should be careful.
	There is plenty of evidence that the North sea contains lots of haddock. It is the main fishery for Scottish fishermen, and it is imperative that it is not imperilled because of an obsession with the cod by-catch, without taking into account the important new evidence on climate change. I appreciate that the Minister wants to wind up, so I shall conclude on that point.

Ben Bradshaw: I will come to that later if I have time; that may encourage the hon. Gentleman not to intervene any more.
	The port represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) has probably been one of the hardest hit in recent years in terms of its commercial catching sector. I shall endeavour to go to the Council next week to see whether we can get some of the things she asked us to try for. We are proposing the scheme on data collection to the Commission formally and we hope to get support for that. I was very pleased to hear about the health and stability of her processing sector, which I have visited during the past 12 months, and particularly about her shellfish sector exporting all around the world. No decisions have yet been made on the points that she raised on the European fisheries fund, but we will consult about them next year and I hope that she will respond in due course.
	I also take on board my hon. Friend's concerns—and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and others—about wind farms. One of the reasons why we desperately need this new marine legislation is so that we can resolve some of the potential conflicts in the marine environment more quickly and ensure that if fishermen are adversely affected they are at least properly compensated and proper space is allowed for them to continue their activities, because it is inevitable that we will need more renewable offshore energy. I hope that that issue can be resolved in the marine Bill.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) raised several issues. He suggested that it was time that pressure was put on other countries. We achieved progress on that at last year's Fisheries Council; the hit that we took was less than those taken by the types of fisheries operated in other countries. There is recognition at the European Commission that the UK has taken the biggest hit in terms of cod recovery, and in respect of the amount that we have reduced our fleet by—two thirds in the case of the white fish fleet. We will certainly make the same arguments again; when the proposals are finalised and negotiated, we will make the point that we think that we have already contributed more than anybody else. However, it is wrong to suggest that other countries have not taken pain as well; the industries of Denmark, the Netherlands and Ireland have. But the hon. Gentleman is right that there needs to be a level playing field.
	We will argue for a roll-over for cod because of the review and the state of the 2005 year class. However, I have to say that I would be being pretty optimistic if I were to allow myself to think that we will get that, given the recommendations made by the Fisheries Council and the pressure that it is under from the Environment Directorate-General.
	I have already dealt with the marine Bill. On funding, we will have to see what happens in the 2007 comprehensive spending review, but as long as I have been in my current job at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs I have done my best to argue the case for the marine and fisheries bit of the Department, and if the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire looks at some of the figures for the past few months he might notice that I have argued with some success on that front. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the regional advisory councils, and I was grateful for the thanks of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby for the financial support that we have been giving them. Contrary to the many predictions that were made by some in the industry and some in this House that they would be a talking shop, they are playing a meaningful role. As I said at that time, if they can prove themselves by offering good and sensible advice, they might be able to accrue more powers to themselves, particularly as we move towards the common fisheries policy review in 2011.
	Since my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) entered the House he has become a doughty champion of the fishermen in his constituency, and he made a number of very good points. He spoke about the three-yearly deals on some species. There are already long-term management plans for some species, and a new rule was recently introduced that only in exceptional circumstances should the tax and quotas go up or down by more than 15 per cent. That was an attempt to introduce for the sector a little certainty and the possibility of long-term management. That is one of the reasons why we have achieved more stability than previously in the last two or three years, and we shall certainly try to get the Commission to stick to that.
	A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), raised climate change, and I addressed that in an earlier exchange. I hear what people say about the role of climate change in respect of cod in the North sea, and I know that there is a natural tendency in the industry to grasp on to that as a reason why cod has declined. But let me read from the recent report that the hon. Gentleman referred to, because he did not refer to all of it. It states that:
	"Warm-water commercial species such as sea bass, red mullet and tuna are becoming more commonplace in our seas.
	Cold-water species, such as cod, have declined, with a possible link suggested between warmer sea temperatures and reduced populations of fish at the southern limit of their distribution range."
	But it continues:
	"Fishing remains the main pressure on commercial fish stocks."
	The advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea does not support the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that in parts of the North sea, cod is extinct so there is no point in worrying about it.
	The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) made a number of detailed points, about which the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) has also written to me. I should be very happy to receive a delegation—from both Members, if the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon does not mind discussing with a neighbouring Member of Parliament the issues that he raised today. We are aware of the position regarding species of ray, and we are trying to get the Commission to distinguish between the various species, so that his Bristol channel fishermen are not hit in the way that he fears. Consultation is currently under way, so we have some time to address the issue.
	The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon also raised the issue of the minimum landing size for bass that we announced earlier this year. The counter-argument was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, who, in making the case for what we are doing, wished that we had gone further. As he said, 42 cm is the size at which most female bass start to spawn, so if we allow them to grow to that size we will get not only more but bigger fish. As I said in my introduction, in the short term that will involve some pain for certain fishermen, particularly inshore fishermen in the south-west. However, just as with the registration of buyers and sellers, in the medium to long term they will benefit from the increased landing size and the increased number of bass in exactly the same way as recreational fishermen. We carried out a long public consultation, based on research, which showed that the vast majority of the beneficiaries will be our own fishermen, because the bass that are caught are moving within our own waters—even within the six-mile area to which other fishermen do not have access.
	The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon also mentioned Belgian trawlers. Our information is that there is no evidence of fishing activity by any Belgian vessels over 220 kW converted to twin otter trawling within 12 miles of the north coast of Devon and Cornwall, with the exception of one vessel in excess of 221 kW that fished with twin otter trawls for four hours in the six to 12 mile zone off the coast of Devon. The same vessel also fished for 48 hours to the north of Lundy island in the outer belt toward the end of June. The major Belgian effort in the Celtic sea occurs outside the 12 mile zone, between Cape Cornwall and Milford Haven. However, if the hon. and learned Gentleman has more up-to-date information than that, I should be happy to look at it.
	I omitted to respond to a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool made about conflicts off the north-east coast involving some French vessels. There has been one successful prosecution and as I understand it, the problem has been amicably resolved. However, I think he said that further problems have occurred—it might have been my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby—in that two of the eight French vessels are not adhering to the agreement. I will certainly have another look at this issue and get back to him, if I may.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby was keen to put lead in my pencil and to ensure that I do not take my eye off the ball in Brussels next week; as always, I shall try to reflect the former and not to do the latter. I take on board the points that he made about the recommendations on tax and quotas. He is absolutely right to say that, in cases where quotas have not been fully taken up in the previous year, it does not make sense to reduce the quota as a result. As he said, that introduces an incentive along the lines of, "If you don't use it, you lose it." We may have some success in persuading the Commission of that argument, but we shall have to wait, as we usually have to do, until we see its first compromise proposal next Tuesday. My hon. Friend may also be interested to know that we have already defended the 2.9 per cent. figure as part of the EU-Norway agreement.
	We have not ruled out decommissioning completely—in fact, we are holding out the prospect of some decommissioning in the south-west if we get a sole recovery plan for the English channel. However, we have come to the view that in general terms, decommissioning is not a sensible use of public money because it is not the best way to reduce capacity in the fleet for the long term.
	I turn to the contribution—I hope it is not the last during a fisheries debate in this House—of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. He pointed to the contrast between the more optimistic analysis of the state of the industry that I gave and the briefing that he had been given by the Scottish Fisheries Federation. I suspect that that is because it was briefing him on this debate in advance of the Council negotiations and, as he knows as he has been doing this for a long time, the recommendations that are made initially tend to be quite tough and we do not usually end up in the same place. Indeed, I would not expect anything less from the Scottish Fisheries Federation. It will of course brief the hon. Gentleman that the proposals are very serious and something needs to be done about them. As I have already said, I will do what I can.
	It is also fair to point out that in October the president of the federation, Alex West, told its annual dinner in Edinburgh that the feel-good factor was coming back. He said that prices this year have exceeded all expectations and that it has been a good year in some sectors. He said that for some it may be a record year. At the same dinner, his chief executive, Bertie Armstrong, said that there was a new optimism in the air. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that although everything in the garden is not rosy,  Fishing News reports that his port is heading for a record year. It states:
	"Five new pelagic and whitefish vessels for Peterhead owners are currently under construction or on order. Optimism is also being boosted by skippers reporting an abundance of small codling, haddock and whiting, and cod moving back onto grounds where they have not been found in...years."
	I take the hon. Gentleman's points about the importance of obtaining as good a deal as possible for his constituents, within sustainable fishing limits, but the last year has not been a bad one for them—partly due, I suspect, to assiduous lobbying on their behalf for which he is well known.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about ITQs. The term has been a source of some confusion because of the different ways in which ITQ systems operate around the world. The change programme that we are undergoing in our quota management system has focused on the objective of giving fishermen the benefits associated with individual quota holding. Detailed options are still being explored, but our current thinking supports a market-based approach with real-time tradeability of quotas. Our present fixed quota allocation system has many of those features already. We could get into a theological discussion about ITQs, but I hope that most people would accept that real-time tradeability is what we need if we are to put our fishing industry on a sustainable basis.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) raised several of his constituents' concerns about west of Scotland nephrops and days at sea. I hope that we will be able to improve the present proposal on both those issues, as indeed we managed to do last year, and that the significant increases in nephrops that we achieved last year are not reduced. Indeed, I hope that there will be room for further improvement.
	I was pleased that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) recognised the increased strength of his industry. I remember reading in a recent edition of  Fishing News that 80 new jobs had been created in the industry in his constituency in the past year, which is a sign of its strength. He is right to raise concerns about the conduct of the EU-Norway talks. I made our concern about that plain to the Fisheries Commissioner in my last telephone conversation with him. I am not sure that it would be sensible to torpedo the whole thing at the Fisheries Council, but it is a question of balance and I will have to take a judgment at the time. On monkfish and herring, I hope that we can achieve some improvement on the original proposals from the Commission.
	I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster) got to see my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday, and I am sure that he told my hon. Friend that the Government are reviewing the distribution of fish quotas in consultation with the industry. That includes representatives from the under-10 m vessels from his constituency and other areas of the country. Although he is right that they get only some 3 per cent. of the UK's quota, they get more than 20 per cent. of the cod and plaice quota in the English channel and, for around 80 per cent. of their total landings by value in Hastings, fishermen are not restricted by quotas or catch limits.
	Last but not least I come to the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). At least he had the grace to admit that his party did not yet have a policy, but it will, he said, produce a menu. That menu is long overdue and I look forward to receiving it soon so that we can have a proper debate about fisheries policy. He painted a rather gloomy picture, but his legs were cut off at the knees by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen)—perhaps I should call him my hon. Friend—who told him that the fishermen of Brixham were very optimistic, that his local port was booming and—

Mike O'Brien: I thank the hon. Gentleman both for the way in which he has responded to the statement and for his compliments to the Attorney-General, which I will pass on to him.
	The decision was taken by the director of the Serious Fraud Office. There were discussions with the Attorney-General and myself, but during those discussions, the director informed us that he had a view in relation to the issue. That view was his view. He told us that yesterday. He wanted to reflect on it further overnight, and he confirmed it to us about midday today. We have therefore taken the decision that we should inform Parliament of that view as soon as possible.
	The hon. Gentleman asks me to amplify some of the issues in relation to the phases of the investigation. He is right to say that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is an important dividing point. It is arguable whether the corruption of foreign officials was an offence before the 2001 Act, and it would be unsafe in this context to undertake a prosecution. It is unlikely in our view that one would be successful. On that phase, a clear view has been formed therefore that a prosecution is not likely to succeed.
	On the obstacles that relate to phase 2 and indeed, to some extent, to phase 3 of the investigation—those are the periods after the 2001 Act has come into effect—there are various legal issues, quite complex ones in relation to principle and agency, and in relation to how a prosecution might be undertaken and in what circumstances, given the nature of the Government in Saudi Arabia. We would have to take those into account, and they might affect the ability of a prosecution to succeed. There are also various issues in relation to the evidence. I have indicated in the Attorney-General's statement that some of the payments that were made immediately post the coming into effect of the 2001 Act may well have been made in particular circumstances that would not justify a prosecution.
	On subsequent matters, it is clear that there is very limited information or evidence in relation to the third phase, and there is a particular problem in that obtaining that would take a very long time in our view.
	On the public interest, the hon. Gentleman asks me whether it was the director of the Serious Fraud Office who took those issues into account. I can confirm that it was the director. Of course the Attorney-General and, indeed, myself also subsequently considered whether we concurred. On the public interest, we certainly concur. On the evidence issues, the Attorney-General formed a view, which was that he thought that there were some serious problems in respect of the likelihood of a long-term prosecution being undertaken in any event.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point: we ought perhaps to look at how we better advise companies in relation to what are some difficult and complex issues. He will understand that we have had little time since making the decision to consider his point—indeed, he has put it to me this evening. We will have some discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry on how we might best perhaps guide companies, and perhaps come back to him later, to find out whether we can deal with some of the issues that he has quite rightly identified.

Mike O'Brien: I object to the tone of the hon. Gentleman's comments in relation to the implication that the director of the Serious Fraud Office has somehow made a political decision. He has made a judgment based on the rule of law and the balancing test that he is required in law to use in relation to the public interest and the prosecution of a case.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions and I will try to deal with each of them. It is the case that the director and, subsequently, the Attorney-General and I, had to balance the issue of national security, and the damage that might be caused to national security if we took a particular decision, against the importance of dealing with the serious allegations that were made. There is also the fact that the investigation of those allegations could take 18 months and that during that period considerable damage might be caused.
	At the end of the 18 months, it might well have been likely—indeed, the Attorney-General reached the view that there were obstacles to a successful prosecution—that in any event, no prosecution would have taken place. In such circumstances, weighing the importance of national security in this case against the allegations, the 18-month period and the fact that there would have been no guarantee that a prosecution would have taken place at the end of the 18 months, a proper decision had to be made by the director of the Serious Fraud Office. I would defend both the way in which he made that decision and the decision that he made. The public interest requires the director of the Serious Fraud Office to make a balanced judgment—he has done that. He is independent and he has made his decision in accordance with the rule of law and his obligations.
	The hon. Gentleman seems to take the view, for various reasons of principle, that no matter the consequences or the damage to national security, he would favour continuing the investigation. I have to tell him that I support the decision of the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Attorney-General. This is a matter not of political difficulties, but of making proper decisions according to the rule of law.

Alex Salmond: Is the Solicitor-General aware that news of his statement sent a frisson of excitement through the fisheries debate? Some people thought that the Prime Minister himself was about to come and tell us about police inquiries. Does the Solicitor-General understand that even if the decision was made for the best of reasons, it will look very dodgy? Will he at least give us an assurance that the phrase,
	"necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest",
	is not being used as a precedent for balancing the need to maintain the rule of law with narrow political interests involved in any other investigations with which the police are engaged?

Patrick Cormack: Does the Solicitor-General accept, from one who does not for a minute impugn the integrity of the Attorney-General and who believes that the decision is the inevitable one, that there are many others who think it should have been made far earlier?

David Lammy: I thank the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) for securing the debate and for the manner in which he has made his comments. I also thank him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) for all their work in the all-party group on historic churches.
	Let me associate myself with the remarks that the hon. Gentleman has made. He and I share a love of churches and of choral music: we were together only last week at a Friends of Cathedral Music event in the House. He therefore knows that the topic is close to my heart. I am glad that we have an opportunity to discuss the matter in the House, following last week's worthwhile debate in another place.
	During my time in this post, I have been pleased to visit a good number of churches in an official capacity. I am also pleased that one of the first things that I was able to do was to convene a Church Heritage Forum, in which I heard at first hand from denominational representatives and heritage specialists what they saw as the issues facing churches in this country.
	We should not need to remind ourselves of all the reasons that our churches, cathedrals and other religious buildings are so significant to communities. Their contribution to the nation's heritage is unique, with some dating back more than 1,000 years, and they are witnesses, one could say, to the changing generations of this country. As the hon. Gentleman has indicated powerfully, they act as a spiritual home for many people across the country. They are therefore key to our sense of place and belonging.
	As those buildings have been passed down through the generations, it now falls to us as the current guardians to ensure that they are in a good state to be passed on to those who follow us. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right: while we have seen some successful and iconic advances, particularly in our urban churches, a real challenge exists in rural areas such as Norfolk and Oxfordshire. We all need to work together to preserve our rural churches and find new uses to contribute to those buildings, because of the challenges presented by falling congregations. I was at a Churches Tourism Association conference three weeks ago and heard of how churches are planning for new uses. Part of that is putting church tourism on a firmer footing—just one of many growth areas where new initiatives are being developed and new audiences sought.
	People attached to churches, particularly in rural areas, perform a variety of vital activities and services: supporting elderly people, providing child care, counselling or advice. They help to hold communities together. A major piece of research funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently confirmed that. We know that this is taking an innovative turn also, with churches hosting post offices, village shops, farmers markets and even cashpoint machines.
	We are not just talking about services of a social nature, but many cultural activities such as musical events, drama or art exhibitions. We know that the churches are, in line with the "Building Faith in our Future" agenda, looking for new ways to engage with local communities. We need to find new uses for churches that will help, in the longer run, to preserve the fabric by bringing in new streams of funding, new people and new partnerships. Churches matter to more people than just churchgoers; let us plug in to the wider support for churches that already exists in the nation.
	As churches look to engage more with communities, perhaps by adapting buildings to make them more welcoming or user-friendly, the Government are keen to help by reducing the administrative burdens of such works. Under the ecclesiastical exemption, the major denominations are already exempt from the need to obtain listed building consents for works. It is a system that works well in protecting the nation's historic church buildings, partly due to the wide range of knowledge and expertise represented in the denominations' own systems, most of which is given voluntarily.
	Further to that, the Government have been reviewing the way in which we protect all our historic buildings. The heritage protection review, which will shortly be the subject of a White Paper, will, among other measures, streamline those consents regimes that still apply to churches. It fact it will make the system that applies to all historic buildings more simple, more flexible and more open. Churches will be able to opt in to heritage partnership agreements. Those could remove the need for repeated applications for certain types of work that either crop up regularly, or will be needed at separate sites within, say, a diocese. New listing descriptions for churches will help congregations to understand what is significant about their own specific building when considering proposals for development or change.
	Owning any historic building brings responsibilities and burdens and that is certainly true of looking after a church. We need to recognise the costs of caring for a building that serves not just the local congregation, but the local community. The church is also likely to be the oldest and most intricate building in the area. Many churches are in a vulnerable state. That is not just a fabric maintenance issue; it is also about the size and resources of congregations. Many churches have just a handful of adult worshippers, each perhaps managing a number of voluntary positions within the church and community.
	English Heritage's "Inspired!" campaign earlier this year helped us to recognise what a vulnerable church looked like, why it becomes vulnerable and which areas of the country are most likely to be affected. Like any historic building, the church needs people who are dedicated to its maintenance. Let us not underestimate the importance of people's loyalty and love for their buildings. The work of the many volunteers up and down the country is beyond value. People sometimes look to the situation in other countries, where Governments perhaps take a more direct role in funding of church buildings, but as the hon. Gentleman suggested we can tell when such buildings have lost the love and the sense of ownership that helps to keep other buildings going.
	The hon. Gentleman also set out the legal responsibilities for the maintenance of church buildings; they clearly lie with national and local church bodies. However, I can say that, no matter on whom the legal responsibility lies for the upkeep, the Government do have a role to play and they have been helping. I am glad that he acknowledges that.
	The listed places of worship grant scheme has given out over £50 million since 2001, and over 8,500 buildings have benefited. Earlier this year the Government showed that they had listened to the churches' concerns, and added professional fees and repairs to some fixtures and fittings to the scope of the scheme. In relation to that problem, we continue to negotiate in Europe to be able to offer permanently reduced VAT on church repairs. The joint English Heritage and Heritage Lottery Fund scheme has paid out almost £90 million, and over 1,000 buildings have benefited. Cathedrals have received £42 million since 1991, and dedicated support is continuing. For three years the Wolfson Foundation is generously matching the English Heritage contribution. The Government, with a £3 million annual grant, remain the majority funder of the Churches Conservation Trust, which cares for the most significant of our redundant churches. I am very pleased that, following negotiations, the Heritage Lottery Fund last week committed to continue to support churches for the foreseeable future, with a £20 million fund for 2007-08 and a dedicated places of worship scheme until 2013. Let me at this point also pay tribute to the work of the county historic churches trusts for all the hard work that they have put in to providing grant funding for churches—and I should point out that the hon. Gentleman is president of the Staffordshire trust.
	I welcome the launch earlier this year of the English Heritage "Inspired!" campaign, which echoed the need for a partnership approach that I had already picked up from my Church Heritage Forum late last year. The campaign recognised that the Government could not be expected to plug the whole of what is seen as a funding gap. It put forward five "solutions" that would help to manage the size of the future repair bill and build capacity among the churches to help address current and future issues. The solutions are sensible plans of action, and they would certainly make a difference. Some of them are already being put in place by English Heritage, and the results are good. Timely maintenance will, of course, prevent more costly repair in the long run. I am pleased that English Heritage has already been piloting church maintenance programmes in London and Suffolk, and from next year it will do so in Gloucester. Support officer posts within dioceses, circuits or synods would certainly make a difference. Congregations could be supported in identifying repair priorities and opportunities for alternative use, and a more strategic vision for alternative use across an area could be developed.
	Some of the "Inspired!" solutions are themselves inspired by pockets of good practice in different areas of the country. Last week in another place we heard calls for better access to information on the range of help available. We are looking at whether there might be a role for Government in making sure that the guardians of all our listed religious buildings are able to tap into the expertise that is available.
	I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about English Heritage. It is, of course, central to all the Government's historic environment policies. I should like to put on the record my appreciation of its valuable work, a sentiment that I was able to pass on personally to the commissioners only yesterday. However, although I am sympathetic on the funding issue the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am unable at this time to commit to any increases in Government support for English Heritage as we are about to enter a comprehensive spending review period. However, those of us who are concerned about these issues ought to bear in mind the suggestion of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which questioned in its summer report whether there might also be a greater role for denominations in funding local teams to carry out some basic maintenance and survey functions among their own churches. That seems a good idea.
	Part of ensuring the future of all historic churches is making sure that there are those with the appropriate skills to do the technical work in a historically faithful way. Even here, English Heritage is working with key partners, using Heritage Lottery Fund money, to develop training opportunities to ensure that the skills gaps are plugged over time.
	The Lord Bishop of London, speaking last week in another place, acknowledged that
	"many churches are in a very good state".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 7 December 2006; Vol. 687, c. 1342.]
	I am very pleased to have been able to lay out for the hon. Gentleman how the Government have helped to bring this situation about. The Government remain committed to the future of all our historic places of worship, and to working with the denominations as they seek a sustainable future for their buildings.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Seven o'clock.